w>^ 


^f:- 


X.S.S.  /-f- 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented   by   Dr.   F.LT^l^o-n 


BR    145    .C92    1883"^  VTa 


Cyclopedia  of  religious 
literature  . . 


OF  m 


\> 


OYCLOPEDlk     FEB  25  iai4 


.4 


r<?/ 


fmn  St' 


'>^V< 


EELIGIODS  LITERATURE. 


■VOLTJl5.d:E    THIR^EE, 


CONTAINING: 

THE  EARLY  DAYS  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  by  F.  W 


^ 


,  BY  F.  W.  FarrAK. 


NEW  YORK : 
JOHN  B.  ALDEN,  PUBLISHER, 

1883. 


ROBERT    BROWNING,  Esq.. 

•  AUTHOR   OF    "a    DEATH    IN    THE    DESERT," 

AND   OF   MANY   OTHER    POEMS    OF    THE    DEEPEST    INTEREST    TO    ALL 

STUDENTS    OF    SCRIPTURE, 

THIS    VOLUME 
WITH  SINCERE  ADMIRATION  AND  ESTEEM. 


PREFACE. 

I  COMPLETE  in  this  volume  the  work  which  has  absorbed  such 
leisure  as  could  be  spared  from  many  and  onerous  duties  during  the 
last  twelve  years.  My  object  has  been  to  furnish  English  readers 
with  a  companion,  partly  historic  and  partly  expository,  to  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament.  By  attention  to  the  minutest  details 
of  the  original,  by  availing  myself  to  the  best  of  my  power  of  the 
results  of  modern  criticism,  by  trying  to  concentrate  upon  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  such  light  as  may  be  derived 
from  Jewish,  Pagan,  or  Christian  sources,  I  have  endeavoured  to 
fulfil  my  ordination  vow  and  to  show  diligence  in  such  studies  as 
help  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  "  Life  of 
Christ "  was  intended  mainly  as  a  commentary  upon  the  Gospels. 
It  was  written  in  such  a  form  as  should  reproduce  whatever  I  had 
been  able  to  learn  from  the  close  examination  of  every  word  which 
they  contain,  and  should  at  the  same  time  set  forth  the  living  real- 
ity of  the  scenes  recorded.  In  the  "  Life  of  St.  Paul"  I  wished  to 
incorporate  the  details  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  with  such  biogra- 
phical incidents  as  can  be  derived  from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and 
to  take  the  reader  through  the  Epistles  themselves  in  a  way  which 
might  enable  him,  with  keener  interest,  to  judge  of  their  separate 
purpose  and  peculiarities,  by  grasping  the  circumstances  under 
which  each  of  them  was  written.  The  present  volume  is  an  at- 
tempt to  set  forth,  in  their  distinctive  characteristics,  the  work  and 
the  writings  of  St.  Peter,  St.  James,  St.  Jude,  St.  John,  and  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  If  my  effort  has  been  in  any 
degree  successful,  the  reader  should  carry  away  from  these  pages 


vi  PREFACE. 

some  conception  of  the  varieties  of  religious  thought  which  prevailed 
in  the  schools  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Alexandria,  and  also  of  those 
phases  of  theology  which  are  represented  by  the  writings  of  the  two 
greatest  of  the  twelve  Apostles. 

In  carrying  out  this  design  I  have  gone,  almost  verse  by  verse, 
through  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John — explaining  their  special  difficulties,  and 
developing  their  general  characteristics.  Among  many  Christians 
there  is  a  singular  ignorance  of  the  Books  of  Scripture  as  a  whole. 
With  a  wide  knowledge  of  particular  texts,  there  is  a  strange  lack  of 
familiarity  with  the  bearings  of  each  separate  Gospeland  Epistle. 
I  have  hoped  that  by  considering  each  book  in  connection  with 
all  that  we  can  learn  of  its  author,  and  of  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  written,  I  might  perhaps  contribute  to  the  intelligent 
study  of  Holy  Writ.  There  may  be  some  truth  in  the  old  motto, 
Bonus  textuariiis  bonus  thcologus  ;  but  he  whose  knowledge  is  con- 
fined \o  '^  texts,"  and  who  has  never  studied  them,  first  with  their 
context,  then  as  forming  fragments  of  entire  books,  and  lastly  in 
their  relation  to  the  whole  of  Scripture,  incurs  the  risk  of  turning 
theology  into  an  erroneous  and  artificial  system.  It  is  thus  that  the 
Bible  has  been  misinterpreted  by  substituting  words  for  things  ;  by 
making  the  dead  letter  an  instrument  wherewith  to  murder  the  liv- 
ing spirit  ;  and  by  reading  into  Scripture  a  multitude  of  meanings 
which  it  was  never  intended  to  express.  Words,  like  the  chameleon, 
change  their  color  with  their  surroundings.  The  very  same  word 
may  in  different  ages  involve  almost  opposite  connotations.  The 
vague  and  differing  notions  attached  to  the  same  term  have  been  the 
most  fruitful  sources  of  theological  bitterness,  and  of  the  internecine 
opposition  of  contending  sects.  The  abuse  of  sacred  phrases  has 
been  the  cause,  in  age  after  age,  of  incredible  misery  and  mischief. 
Texts  have  been  perverted  to  sharpen  the  sword  of  the  tyrant  and 
to  strengthen  the  rod  of  the  oppressor— to  kindle  the  fagot  of  the 
Inquisitor  and  to  rivet  the  fetters  of  the  slave.  The  terrible  wrongs 
which  have  been  inflicted  unnn  mankind  in  their  name  have  been 


PREFACE.  Vll 

due  exclusively  to  their  isolation  and  perversion.  The  remedy  foi 
these  deadly  evils  would  have  been  found  in  the  due  study  and  com- 
prehension of  Scripture  as  a  whole.  The  Bible  does  not  all  lie  at  a 
dead  level  of  homogeneity  and  uniformity.  It  is  a  progressive  reve- 
lation. Its  many-coloured  wisdom  was  made  known  ''  fragmentarily 
and  multifariously  " — in  many  parts  and  in  many  manners. 

In  the  endeavour  to  give  a  clearer  conception  of  the  books  here 
considered  I  have  followed  such  different  methods  as  each  particular 
passage  seemed  to  require.  I  have  sometimes  furnished  a  very  close 
and  literal  translation  ;  sometimes  a  free  paraphrase  ;  sometimes  a 
rapid  abstract ;  sometimes  a  running  commentary.  Avoiding  all 
parade  of  learned  references,  I  have  thought  that  the  reader  would 
generally  prefer  the  brief  expression  of  a  definite  opinion  to  the  reit- 
eration of  many  bewildering  theories.  Neither  in  this,  nor  in  the 
previous  volumes,  have  I  wilfully  or  consciously  avoided  a  single 
difficulty.  A  passing  sentence  often  expresses  a  conclusion  which 
has  only  been  formed  after  the  study  of  long  and  tedious  mono- 
graphs. In  the  foot-notes  especially  I  have  compressed  into  the 
smallest  possible  space  what  seemed  to  be  most  immediately  valua- 
ble for  the  ilkistration  of  particular  words  or  allusions.  In  the  choice 
of  readings  I  have  exercised  an  independent  judgment.  If  my  choice 
coincides  in  most  instances  with  that  of  the  Revisers  of  the  New 
Testament,  this  has  only  arisen  from  the  fact  that  I  have  been  guided 
by  the  same  principles  as  they  were.  These  volumes,  like  the  ''  Life 
of  Christ"  and  the  "  Life  of  St.  Paul,"  were  written  before  the  read- 
ings adopted  by  the  Revisers  were  known,  and  without  the  assist- 
ance which  I  should  otherwise  have  derived  from  their  invaluable 
labours.' 

The  purpose  which  I  have  had  in  view  has  been,  I  trust,  in  itself 
a  worthy  one,  however  much  I  may  have  failed  in  its  execution.  A 
living  writer  of  eminence  has  spoken  of  his  works  in  terms  which, 
in  very  humble  measure,  I  would  fain  apply  to  my  own.     "  I  have 


*  I  take  this  opportunity  of  thanking  the  Rev.  John  de  Soyres  and  Mr.  W.  R.  Brown  for 

the  assistance  which  tliey  have  rendererl  in  preparing  this  book  for  the  press. 


Viii  PREFACE. 

made,"  said  Cardinal  Newman — in  a  speech  delivered  in  1879 — 
*'  many  mistakes.  I  have  nothing  of  that  high  perfection  which  be- 
longs to  the  writings  of  the  saints,  namely,  that  error  cannot  be 
found  in  them.  But  what,  I  trust,  I  may  claim  throughout  all  I  have 
written  is  this — an  honest  intention  ;  an  absence  of  personal  ends  ; 
a  temper  of  obedience  ;  a  willingness  to  be  corrected  ;  a  dread  of 
error;  a  desire  to  serve  the  Holy  Church;  and"  (though  this  is 
perhaps  more  than  I  have  any  right  to  say)  "  through  the  Divine 
mercy  a  fair  measure  of  success." 

F.  W.  FARRAR. 

S/.  Margaret's  Rectory,   Westminster, 
June  7,  1882. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Book  I. 

_  THE    WORLD. 

CHAPTER  I. 

MORAL   CONDITION   OF  THE   WORLD. 

Degradations  which  accompanied  the  Decadence  of  Paganism — The  Slaves — The 
Rich  and  Noble — The  Emperor — Fatal  Degeneracy — Greeklings — Literature, 
Art,  the  Drama — The  Senate — Scepticism  and  Superstition — Stoic  Virtue — The 


Holy  Joy  of  Christians . 


CHAPTER   n. 

THE   RISE   OF   THE   ANTICHRIST. 

The  Nemesis  of  Absolutism — Reign  of  Nero — Christians  and  the  Roman  Government 
— St.  Paul  and  the  Empire — Horrors  of  (^assarism— The  Palace  of  the  Anti- 
christ— Agrippina  the  Younger — Infancy  of  Nero — Evil  Auguries — Intrigues  af 
Agrippina— Her  Marriage  with  Claudius— Her  Career  as  Empress— Her  Plots 
to  Advance  her  Son— Her  Crimes— Her  Peril— Murder  of  Claudius— Accession 
of  Nero 1 1-23 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE   FEATURES   OF  THK   ANTICHRIST. 

Successful  Guilt— Fresh  Crimes— The  "Golden  Quinquen>ttrttn^'—YoY\es  of  Nero 
—Threats  of  Agrippina— Jealousy  of  Britannicus— Murder  of  I'.ritannicus— 
Nero  estranged  from  Agrippina— Influence  of  Poppaa- Plot  to  Murder  Agrip- 
pina—Burrus  and  Seneca— Murder  of  Agrippina— A  Tormented  Conscience — 
The  Depths  of  Satan 23-33 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   BURNING   OF   ROME   AND   THE   FIRST   PERSECUTION. 

The  Era  of  Martyrdom— The  Fire  of  Rome— Was  Nero  Guilty  ?— Devastation  of  the 
City — Confusion  and  Agony — The  Golden  House — Nero  Suspected — ^The 
Christians  Accused  —  Strangeness  of  this  Circumstance — Tacitus — Popular 
Feeling  against  the  Christians — Secret  Jewish  Suggestions — Poppasa  a  Prose- 
lyte—  incendiarism  attributed  to  Christians — ^^sthetic  Cruelty— A  Huge  Mul- 
titude— Dreadful  Forms  of  Martj'rdom — Martyrs  on  the  Stage — The  Antichrist 
— Retribution — Awful  Omens — The  Revolt  of  Vindex — Suicide  of  Nero — Ex- 
pectation of  his  Return 34~52 


X  CONTENTS. 

Book  II. 

ST.    PETER   AND   THE   CHURCH    CATHOLIC. 
CHAPTER  V. 

WKITINGS   OK   THE   APOSTLES   AND   EARLY   CHRISTIANS. 

PAGB 

Annals  of  the  Church— End  of  the  Acts— Obscurity  of  Details— Little  known  about 
tlie  Apostles— St.  Andrew— St.  Bartholomew— St.  Matthew— St.  Thomas— St. 
yamcs  the  Less — St.  Simon  Zelotes — Judas — Late  and  Scanty  Records — Writ- 
ings of  the  Great  Apostles— Invaluable  as  illustrating  different  Phases  of  Cliris- 
tian  Thought — They  E.xplain  the  opposite  Tendencies  of  Heretical  Develop- 
ment— The  Revelation — The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — The  Seven  Catholic 
Epistles — The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude — The  Episde  of  St.  James — The  Epistles  of 
St.  Peter — Catholicity  of  St.  Peter — The  'I'hree  Epistles  of  St.  John — Genuine- 
ness of  these  Writings — Contrasts  between  different  Apostles — Difference  be- 
tween St.  Paul  and  St.  John — Superiority  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Writ- 
ings of  the  Apostolic  Fathers — The  Episde  of  St.  Clemens — Its  Theological  and 
Intellectual  Weakness — The  Epistle  of  Barnabas — Its  exaggerated  Pauhnism 
— Its  E.xtravagant  E.xegesis — The  Christian  Church  was  not  ideally  Pure— Yet 
its  Chief  Glory  was  in  the  Holiness  of  its  Standard 53-72 

CHAPTER  VI. 

ST.    PETER. 

Outline  of  his  early  Life — Events  recorded  in  the  Acts — Complete  Uncertainty  as  to 
his  Subsequent  Career — Legends — Domine  quo  vadisl — ^The  Legends  embel- 
lished and  Doubtful — Legend  about  Simon  Magus — Was  Peter  Bishop  of 
Rome? — Improbability  of  the  Legend  about  his  Crucifixion  head  downwards — 
His  Martyrdom — His  Visit  to  Rome 72-79 

CHAPTER  VII. 

SPECIAL   FEATURES   OF  THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER. 

Date  of  the  Epistle — Its  certain  Genuineness— Style  of  the  Episde — A  Christian 
Treatise — Natural  Allusions  to  Events  in  the  Gospels — Vivid  Expressions — Re- 
semblance to  the  Speeches  in  the  Acts — Allusions  to  the  Law — Resemblances 
to  St.  Paul  and  St.  James— Plasticit\'  of  St.  Peter's  Nature— Struggle  after 
Unity — Originality— His  View  of  Redemption — His  View  of  Faith^HIs 
Views  upon  Regeneration  and  Baptism — Not  Transcendentc^l  but  Practical 
— Christ's  Descent  into  Hades— Great  Importance  of  the  Doctrine — Attempts 
to  explain  It  away — Reference  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatlans — Addressed  to 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles— Crisis  at  which  It  was  Composed — A  Time  of  Perse- 
cution—Keynote of  the  Letter— Analysis 79-98 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

the   first   epistle   of   ST.    PETER. 

Title  which  he  Adopts — Address — Provinces  of  Asia — Thanksgiving — Exhortation  to 
Hope — Special  Appeals — Duty  of  Blameless  Living — Duty  of  Civil  Obedience 
Humble  Submission — Address  to  Servants — To  Christian  Wives — Exhortation 
to  Love  and  Unity— Christ  Preaching  to  the  Spirits  In  Prison— Obvious  Import 
of  the  Passage — Ruthlessncss  of  Commentators — The  approaching  End — Ad- 
dress to  Elders— Conclusion 99-113 

CHAPTER   IX. 

PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   SECOND   EPISTLE. 

Overpositlveness  in  the  Attack  and  Defence  of  its  Genuineness- Its  Canonlclty — Ex- 
aggeration of  the  Ar.;uments  urped  in  its  Favour — Extreme  Weakness  of 
External  Evidence — Tardy  Acceptance  of  the  Epistle — Views  of  St.  Jerome, 
&c. —Cessation  of  Criticism— The  Unity  of  its  Structure- Oudine  of  the  Letter 


CONTENTS.  xi 

PAGE 

— Internal  Evidence — Resemblances  to  First  Epistle — Difference  of  Stj'Ie — 
Peculiarity  of  its  Expressions — Difference  in  general  Form  of  Thought— Irrele- 
vant Arguments  about  the  Style — Marked  Variations — Dr.  Abbott's  Proof  of 
the  Resemblance  to  Josephus — Could  Josephus  have  Read  it? — Reference  to 
the  Second  Advent — What  may  be  urged  against  these  Difficulties— Priority  of 
St.  Jude — Extraordinary'  Relation  to  St.  Jude — Method  of  Dealing  with  the 
Stranger  Phenomena  of  St.  Jude's  Epistle— Possible  Counter-considerations — 
Allusion  to  the  Transfiguration— Ancientness  of  the  Epistle — Superiority  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Post-Apostolic  Writings — The  Thoughts  may  have  been  Sanc- 
tioned and  Adopted  by  St.  Peter 114-136 

CHAPTER   X. 

THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER. 

Reasons  for  OfTering  a  Literal  Translation  of  the  Epistle— Translation  and  Notes- 
Abrupt  Conclusion 137-142 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE    EPISTLE   OF   ST.   JGDE. 

Its  Authenticity' — Who  was  the  Author? — Jude,  the  Brotherof  James— Not  an  Apos- 
tle— One  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Lord— Why  he  does  not  use  this  Title— Why 
be  calls  himself  "Brother  of  James" — Story  of  his  (Grandchildren — Circum- 
stances which  may  have  called  forth  the  Epistle — Corruption  of  Morals— Who 
were  the  Offenders  thus  Denounced  ? — Resemblances  to  Second  Epistle  of  St, 
Peter — ^IVanslation  and  Notes — St^ie  of  Greek — Simplicity  of  Structure — Fond- 
ness for  Apocryphal  Allusions— Methods  of  Dealing  with  these  Peculiarities — 
"■  Verbal  Dictation  " — Rabbinic  Legends — Corrupt,  Gnosticising  Sects 143-157 


Book  III. 

APOLLOS,    ALEXANDRIAN   CHRISTIANITY,  AND  THE 
EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

JUDAISM,    THE   SEPTUAGINT,   ETC. 

Unity  of  Christian  Faith — Diversity  in  LTnity — Necessity  and  Blessing  of  the  Diver- 
sity— Individuality  of  the  Sacred  Writers — Phases  of  Christian  Truth — Alex- 
a^tdrian  Christianity — The  Jews  and  Greek  Philosophy — Hebraism  and 
Hellenism — Glories  of  Alexandria — Prosperity  of  the  Jews  in  Alexandria — The 
Diapleuston — Favour  shown  the  Jews  by  the  Ptolemies— The  Septuagint — De- 
light of  the  Hellenists — Anger  of  the  Hebraists — Effects  on  Judaism— Bias 
of  the  Translators — Harmless  Variations  from  the  Hebrew — Hagadoth— Avoid- 
ance of  Anthropomorphism  and  Anthropopathy — Deliberate  Manipulation  of 
the  Original — Aristobulus — The  Wisdom  of  Solomon — Semi-Ethnic  Jewish 
Literature — Philo  not  wholly  Original 158-170 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

PHII.O   AND  THE    DOCTRINE   OF  THE   LOGOS. 

Family  of  Alexander  the  Alabarch— Life  of  Philo — Classification  of  his  Works— Those 
that  bear  on  the  Creation — On  Abraham — Allegorising  Fancies — The  Life  of 
Moses — Arbitrary  Exegesis— Meanings  of  the  word  Logos — Personification  of 
the  Logos — The  High  Priest — A  Cup-bearer — Other  Comparisons — Vague 
Oudines  of  the  Conception — Contrast  with  St.  John 170-178 


xii  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

l'HI1.0NISM— ALLEGORY— THE  CATECHETICAL   SCHOOL. 

PAGE 
Influence  of  Philo  on  the  Sacred  Writers— Sapiential  Literature  of  Alexandria— De- 
fects of  Philonism — ^The  School  of  St.  Mark — Motto  of  the  Alexandrian  School 
— Ailcsory  applied  to  the  Old  Testament — ^The  Pardes  of  the  Kabbalists  — 
History  of  Allegory  in  the  Alexandrian  School — Allegory  in  the  Western 
Church 178-183 

CHAPTER  XV. 

AUTHORSHIP   AND   STYLE   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   HKBREWS. 

Continuity  of  Scripture — Manifoldness  of  Wisdom — Ethnic  Inspiration — The  Epistle 
Alexandrian — External  Evidence — Summary — Superficial  Custom — Misuse  of 
Authorities — Later  Doubts  and  Hesitations — Indolent  Custom — Phrases  com- 
mon to  the  Author  with  St.  Paul — Difilerences  of  Style  not  explicable — The 
Episde  not  a  Translation — Fondness  of  the  Writer  for  Sonorous  Amplifica- 
tions    183-193 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

THEOLOGY  OF   THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE  HEBREWS. 

Difference  from  the  Theological  Conceptions  of  St.  Paul — ^Three  Cardinal  Topics — 
"The  People" — Christianity  and  Judaism — Alexandrianism  of  the  Writer — 
Prominence  of  the  Jews — Method  of  treating  Scripture — Indebtedness  to  Philo — 
Particular  Expressions — "The  Cutter-Word" — Stern  Passages — Melchizedek- 
Priesthood  of  Christ— Superiority  to  Philo — Fundamental  Alexandrianism — 
Judaism  not  regarded  as  a  Law  but  as  a  System  of  Worship — "The  Pattern 
shewn  thee  in  the  Mount" — Effectiveness  of  the  Argument — A  Prse-existent 
Ideal — The  World  of  Ideas — View  of  Hope — Faith,  in  this  Episde  and  in  St. 
Paul — RiGHTEousNhss — Chiustology — Redemption — Prominence  given  to 
Priesthood  and  Sacrifice — Peculiar  Sentences — The  Author  could  not  have 
been  St.  Paul 193-212 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

WHO   wrote   the   epistle   to   the   HEBREWS. 

Absence  of  Greeting — Certainties  about  the  Writer — By  some  known  Friend  of  St. 
Paul — Yet  not  by  Aquila — Nor  byTiTUS — Nor  by  Silas — Nor  by  St.  Barna- 
bas—Nor  by  St.  Clemens  of  Rome — Nor  by  St.  Mark — Nor  by  .St.  Luke — 
Strong  Probability  that  the  Writer  was  Apollos — This  would  not  necessarily 
be  known  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria — Suggested  by  Luther — Generally  and 
Increasingly  Accepted — Date  of  the  Flpistle— Allusion  to  Timothy — Addressed 
to  Jewish  Christians — Not  Addressed  to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem — Nor  to 
Cormth— Nor  to  Alexandria — May  have  been  Addressed  to  Rome — Or  to 
Ephesus— "  They  of  Italy  "—Apollos 212-222 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  epistle  to   THE  HEBREWS. 

Section  \.—  TJie  Superiority  ^/C/z^/j/*.— Comparison  between  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity—Outline of  the  Epistle— Its  Keynotes— Striking  Opening— Christ  Supe- 
rior to  Angels— Peculiar  Method  of  Scriptural  Argument— Use  of  Quotations 
—\\\  Admitted  Method— Partial  Change  of  View— The  Style  af  Argument  less 
important  to  us 222-230 

Sf-CTIOn  II.— ^  Solemn  /i.rAcr^rt/wM.— Translation  and  Notes— Christ  Superior  to 

Moses— Parallelism  of  Structure — Appeal 230-236 

Section  \\\.~The  High  Priesthood  of  Christ..— TxzLW^MxowaX  Exhortation— Quali- 
fications of  Hii;h  Priesthood— Sketch  of  the  great  Argument  of  tlie  Episde— 
Translation  and  Notes — Explanation  of  Difficulties  respecting  the  Nature  of 
Christ — Digression— Post- Baptismal  Sin — Indefectibility  of  Grace — Calvinistic 
View  of  the  Passage— Arminian  View— Neither  View  Tenable— Obvious  Limi- 
tations of  die  Meaning  of  the  Passage—"  Near  a  Curse"—"  For  Burning"— A 
Belter  Hope 236-251 


CONTENTS.  Xm 

I'AGE 

Section  IV. —  TJie  Prderof  .If ^/c/iizrtfci.— Translation  and  Notes — All  thitis  known 
of  Melchi/.edck — Salem — El  FJion — Allusion  in  Psahn  ex. — Hagadoth — Plulo 
— Mystery  attached  to  Melchizedek — Fantastic  Hypotheses — Wh.o  Meichize- 
dek  was — Only  Important  as  a  Type — Semitic  Phraseology  and  Modes  of 
Arguing  from  the  Silence  of  Scripture — Translation  and  Notes — Argument  of 
the  Passage — Superiority  of  the  Melchizedek  to  the  Levitic  Priesthood  in 
Seven  Particulars — Summary  and  Notes 2  51-262 

Section  V. —  The  Dayo/Atofiement. — Grandeur  of  the  Day — Tran.slation  and  Notes 
— A  New  Covenant — Its  Superior  Ordinances  of  Ministration— Translation  and 
Notes — Symbolism  of  Service — The  Tabernacle,  not  the  Temple — "  Vacua 
omnia" — Contents  of  the  Ark — The  Tkumiateriori — Censer  f?) — Altar  of  In- 
cense— ^Translation  and  Notes — Meanings  of  the  word  Diatheke — An  obvious 
Play  on  its  Second  Meaning  of  "  Testament "— IVanslation  and  Notes — Fam- 
iliarity with  the  Hagadoth  and  the  Halacha — Cirandest  Phase  of  Levitic  Priest- 
hood— Feelings  Inspired  by  the  Day— Careful  Preparation  of  the  High  Priest 
— Legendary  Additions  to  the  Ritual — Peril  of  the  Function — Chosen  as  the 
Highest  Point  of  Comparison — Superiority  of  Christian  Privileges  in  every  re- 
spect      262-281 

Section  VI. — A  Frcapitulation. — Translation  and  Notes — Triumphant  Close  of  the 

Argument — Summary 281-285 

Section  VIT. — A  Third  Solemn  IVaming: — Exhortation — Its  Solemnity — Trans- 
lation and  Notes 285-288 

Skctio-hVIW.  — The  Glories  o/Fnitk.—YM-m—V^hat  is  Faith  ?— Exhibited  in  its 
Issues — Beginning  of  the  Illustration — Instances  from  each  Period  of  Sacred 
History — Translation  and  Notes 288-294 

Section  IX. — Final  Exhortations. — Exhortation  to  Endurance — God's  Father- 
hood— ^Translation  and  Notes — Faith  and  Patience — Superior  Grandeur  of 
Christianity — Moral  Appeal  of  the  last  Chapter — Translation  and  Notes — 
Modern  Controversies — "  We  have  an  Altar  " — Explanation  of  the  Passage — 
Exhortation — Obedience — Final  Clauses — Their  Bearing  on  the  Authorship  ot 
the  Epistle 294-305 


Sooli  IV. 

JUDAIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

'"the  lord"'s  brother." 

A  New  Phase  of  Christianity — The  Name  "  James  " — The  Author  was  not  James  the 
Son  of  Zebedee — Untenable  Arguments — Nor  James  the  Son  of  Alphaeus — 
Untenal)le  Arguments— Alphaeus — He  is  James,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  the 
Lord's  Ikother — Is  he  Identical  with  the  Son  of  Alphseus  ? — "  Neither  did  his 
Brethren  Believe  on  Him  " — Paucity  of  Jewish  Names — Helvidian  Theoiy — 
The  Simplest  and  Fairest  Explanation  of  the  Language  of  the  Evangelists — 
The  Language  not  Absolutely  Decisive — Dogma  of  the  Aeiparthenia — The 
Evangelists  give  no  Hint  of  it — What  the  Gospels  Say — Utter  Baselessness  of 
the  Theory  of  St.  Jerome — Entirely  Untrue  that  the  Terms  "Cousins"  and 
"  I'rothers  "  are  Identical — ^I'he  Theory  an  Invention  due  to  a  priori  Concep- 
tions— Not  a  single  Argument  can  be  Adduced  in  its  favour — Tendencies  which 
Led  to  the  Dogma  of  the  Aeiparthe?iia — Unscriptural  and  Manichaean  Dis- 
paragement of  the  Sanctity  of  Marriage — The  Theory  arises  from  Apollinarian 
Tendencies — Theorj'  of  Epiphanius — Derived  from  the  Apoci^yphal  Gospels — 
Their  Absurdities  and  Discrepancies — Conclusion 306-323 

CHAPTER  XX. 

life   and   character   of   ST.    JAMES. 

Inimitable  Truthfulness  of  Scripture  narrative — Childhood  and  Training  of  St.  James 
—  A  Boy's  Education — "A  Just  Man" — Levitic  Precision — The  Home  at 
Nazareth — Familiarity  with  Scripture—"  Wisdom  " — Knowledge  of  Apocryphal 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Kooks— Curious  Phenomenon— A  Nazarite— Scrupulous  Holiness— A  Lifelong 
Vow— Shadows  over  the  Home  at  Nazareth— Alienation  of  Christ's  "  Brethren  " 
—Their  Interferences— His  Calm  and  Gentle  Rebukes— Their  I.ast  Interference 
—Their  Complete  Conversion— Due  to  the  Resurrection—"  He  was  Seen  of 
Tames"— Legend  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews — St.  James  and  St.  Paul- 
Death  of  the  Son  of  Zebedee— James,  J'.ishop  of  Jerusalem— Deep  Reverence 
for  his  Character— (V'//.tw— St.  James  and  St.  Peter— Bearmg  of  St.  James  m 
the  Synod  of  Jerusalem- Wisdom  which  he  Showed— Importance  of  the  <jues- 
tion'at  stake— His  Decision— Its  Results—"  Certain  from  James  "—A  Favourite 
of  the  Kbionilcs— ludaic  Type  of  his  Character  and  of  his  Viev/s— The  Results 
of  his  Trainin.LC— '"' The  Just"— Title  which  he  Adopts— Unfortunate  Advice  to 
St  Paul— Martyrdom  of  St.  James— Josephus—Hegesippus— Narrative  of 
Hegesippus— Talmudic  Legends  of  St  James— Rapid  Retribution 323-354 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

CHARACTERISTICS   OF  THE   EPISTLE  OF  ST.    JAMES. 

Canonicity  of  St.  James— Judaic  Tone  of  Thought— Absence  of  Distinctively  Chris- 
tian Dogmas— Luther's  Rash  Assertion— Ideal  of  St.  James— Readers  Whom 
he  had  "in  View— Date  of  the  Epistle— Where  Written— Phenoniena  of  the 
Epistle  explained  by  its  Palestinian  Origin— State  of  the  Jewish  Church  at 
Jerusalem— Tyrannous  Sadducean  Priests— Maledictions  against  them  in  the 
Talmud — Their  Greed  and  Luxury — St.  James  in  Writing  to  Christians  was 
Thinking  partly  of  Jews — And  his  Words  would  be  Respected  by  Jews  as 
•well  as  Christians — Asserted  Essenism  and  Ebionism  of  St.  James — Orphic 
Colouring— Style  of  St.  James — Outline  of  the  Epist'.e — Its  one  Predominant 
Thought— Controversial  Aspect— Parties  in  the  Christian  Church— A  Last 
Appeal  to  Jews— Uniqueness  of  the  Epistk— Its  Usefulness  and  Grandeur 354-373 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

THE   EPISTLE  OF   ST.    JAMES. 

The  Title  which  he  Adopts— The  Dispersion— The  Greeting— Translation  and  Notes 
— Temptation  and  Trial — Need  of  Wisdom — Need  of  Prayer— Address  to 
Rich  and  Poor — Meaning  of  the  Words  addressed  to  them — Tr'nsitoriness  of 
Riches — Blessing  of  Endurance — God  always  in  the  Meridian — A  Pregnant 
Clause — ^The  True  Ritual — Respect  of  Persons — Justification  by  Works- 
Translation  and  Notes — Oracular  Egotism — Sins  of  the  Tongue — Heavenly 
Wisdom — ^Translation  and  Notes — State  of  the  Christian  Communities — St. 

i James  is  Thinking  of  Jerusalem — False  Religionism — "The  Spirit  that  Dwel- 
eth  in  us  Lusteth  to  Envy  "— V^arious  Exhortations — Overconfidence — De- 
nunciation of  Greed — Of  Whom  is  he  Thinking  ? — Sadducean  Hierarchs — 
The  Impending  Doom — The  Murder  of  the  "Just  One" — Despised  Warn- 
ings—Last Exhortations — Efficacy  of  Prayer — Perversion  of  the  Passage— A 
Last  E.xhortation  ...    > 373-401 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

ST.   JAMES   AND   ST.    PAUL   ON   FAITH   AND  WORKS. 

St  Paul  and  St.  James  Contrasted — Is  there  a  Real  Contradiction  ? — Views  of  the 
Tiibingen  .School — Is  St  James  thinking  of  St.  Paul  at  all  ? — ^The  Questions 
often  I  )i.scussed — Jewish  Reliance  on  the  Benefit  of  Theoretic  Monotlieism — 
On  Circumcision — On  National  Privileges — Ou  Externalism  Generally — St 
lames  probably  Intended  to  Correct  Perversions  of  Pauline  Teaching — St 
Paul's  Views  Misrepresented  even  in  his  Lifetime,  and  still  often  Perverted — 
No  Intention  to  Refute  St.  Paul — Is  the  Language  of  the  Apostles  reconcil- 
able?—They  arc  using  the  .same  Words  in  Different  Senses — "Faith"  in  .St. 
Paul  and  in  St.  James— "  Works  "  in  St.  Paul  and  in  St  James— "  Justifica- 
tion" in  .St.  Paul  and  in  St  James — Illustrations  drawn  from  dijiferent  Peri- 
ods in  the  Life  of  Abraham— St.  Paul  was  Dealing  with  the  Vanity  of  Legal- 
ism, St  James  with  the  Vanity  of  Orthodoxy — Fundamental  Agreement 
between  the  two  Apostles  shown  by  what  they  say  of  Faith  and  of  Works  in 
other  Passages — No  Bitter  Controversy  between  them— 'I'hey  used  Different 
J^xprcssions.  and  looked  on  Christianity  from  Different  Points  of  View— What 
IJoth  would  have  Accepted- Blessing  of  Truth  revealed  under  Many  Lights.     402-415 


CONTENTS.  XV 

Book  V. 

THE  EARLIER  LIFE  AND  WORKS  OF  ST.  JOHN. 
CHAPTER  XXIV. 

ST.    JOHN. 

PAGE 
The-  Pillar-Apostles — Individuality  of  Each — St.  Paul  Meets  them  at  Jerusalem — 
The  Special  Work  of  St.  John — His  Growth  in  Spiritual  Enlightenment — 
Continuity  of  his  "Godliness — His  Boyhood — A  Disciple  of  the  Baptist — His 
Natural  Gifts — Independence  of  Galileans — Messianic  Hopes — Becomes  a 
Disciple  of  Jesus — Why  St.  John  lived  at  Jerusalem — Teaching  of  the  Ijaptist 
— Was  St.  John  Married? — "  Follow  Me" — Belonged  to  the  Innermost  Group 
of  Apostles — Not  Ideally  Faultless — He  had  Much  to  Unlearn — His  Exclu- 
siveness — His  Intolerance  at  En  Gannim— Mixture  of  Humane  Motives  with 
his  Zeal — "AsEliasdid" — "Ye  know  not  what  Spirit  ye  are  of' — Christ's 
Last  Journey  to  Jerusalem — Ambition  of  the  Sons  of  Zebedee — The  Cup  and  the 
Baptism — Leaning  on  the  Lord's  Bosom — Flight  at  Gethsemane — The  Earliest 
to  Rejoin  his  Lord — In  the  High  Priest's  Palace — A  Witness  of  the  Trials — A  V 
Witness  of  the  Crucifixion — "  Behold  thy  Mother  !  " — "  To  his  own  Home"  — 
Blood  and  Water — At  the  Tomb — A  Witness  of  the  Resurrection — On  the  Lake 
of  Galilee—"  If  I  Will  that  he  Tarry  till  I  Come  "—Mistaken  Interpretation  of 
the  Words ■ 416-438 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

LIFE  OF  ST.  JOHN  AFTER  THE  ASCENSION. 

In  the  Upper  Room — Healing  of  the  Cripple — Threatened  and  Scourged — With 
Peter  in  Samaria — Years  of  Contemplation — Once  Mentioned  by  .St.  Paul — 
At  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem — A  Judaist — Recognised  the  Mission  of  St.  Paul — 
Took  no  Part  in  the  Debate — No  further  Record.s  of  him  in  Scripture — At  Pat- 
mos — Date  of  this  Banishment — Causes  which  led  to  his  Departure  from 
Jerusalem — Legends  of  his  Banishment  to  Patmos — The  Boiling  Oil  and  the 
Poison — Was  he  ever  at  Rome? — Certainty  that  he  Resided  in  Asia  Minor — 
"The  Nebulous  Presbyter" — John  the  Presbyter  was  John  the  Apostle — The 
Quartodeciman  Controversy — Greek  of  the  Apocalypse — Revealing  Effect  of 
the  Fall  of  Jerusalem — The  Apocalypse  Judaic  in  tone — St.  John  at  Ephesus — 
Patmos 438-453 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

LEGENDS   OF   ST.  JOHN. 

Legend  of  his  Meeting  Cerinthus  at  the  Thermae — Reasons  for  believing  the  ^tory  to 
be  a  mere  Invention — Spirit  of  Religious  Intolerance  in  which  the  Story 
Originated — .Strange  Legend  aljout  the  Messianic  Grapes — Credulity  of  Papias 
— Possible  Explanation  of  the  Stoi-y — Error  of  Irenseus — Vehemence  of  Poly- 
carp — Legend  of  .St.  John  and  the  Robber — Legend  of  St.  John  and  the  Tame 
Partridge — Tenderness  to  Animals — St.  John  and  the  Petaloii — Other  Le- 
gends— St.  John's  Last  Sermons — Legends  of  the  Death  of  St.  John — Legends 
of  his  Immortality 453-464 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

GENERAL   FEATURES   OF   THE   APOCALYPSE. 

The  Earliest  of  St.  John's  Books — What  we  Lose  by  our  Unchronological  Arrange- 
ment of  the  Book — The  Apocalypse  Written  before  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem — Im- 
possibility that  it  should  have  been  Written  after  the  Gospel 464-467 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Section  \.— Date  of  the  Apocalypse. — The  Apocalypse  could  not  have  been  Writ- 
ten in  the  Time  of  Domitian — Possible  Causes  of  the  Error  of  Irensus— Key 
to  the  Apocalypse  found  in  the  Neronian  Persecution — Why  the  Book  has  been 
so  grievously  Misunderstood — Theological  Romances  of  Commentary — The 
Neronian  Persecution  and  tlie  Jewish  War — Lesson  of  the  Apocalypse — Nero 
the  Antichrist — Nero  amid  the  Ashes  of  Rome — All  Apocalypses  deal  with 
Events  on  the  Contemporary  Horizon — Outbreak  of  the  Jewish  War — The 
Temple  still  Standing — The  Flight  of  the  Christians  to  Pella — ^The  Date  of  the 
Apocalypse  Implied  in  Rev.  xiii.  3,  and  xvii.  10,  11 — Written  in  the  Reign  of 
Galba — Or  possibly  a  little  Later — ^I'he  Woes  of  the  Messiah — The  Doom  of 
Rome 467-476 

Section  II. — The  Revolt  of  Judcea. — Delinquencies  of  Pilate — Threatening  Symp- 
toms— Hatred  of  the  Jews  for  the  Romans — The  Air  full  of  Prodigies — Wick- 
edness of  Gessius  Florus — Insolence  of  the  Greeks  at  Csesarea — Disgraceful 
Tyranny  of  Klorus. — The  Jews  Appeal  to  Cestius  Gallus — Rise  of  the  Zealots — 
Seizure  of  the  Tower  of  Antonia — Epidemic  of  Massacre — March  of  Cestius 
Gallus — His  Pusillanimity — His  Defeat  at  Bethhoron — Vespasian  Despatched 
to  Judsea — Leading  Citizens  Involved  in  the  Revolt — Josephus  in  Cialilee — 
Siege  of  Jotapata — Massacres — Siege  of  Gamala — Mount  Tabor — Giscala  — 
Atrocities  of  the  Zealots  in  Jerusalem — The  Idumeans  Admitted — Horrible 
Orgies — Advance  of  Vespasian  Marked  by  fresh  Massacres — A  River  of  Blood 
— Increasing  Horrors — Factions  in  Jerusalem — Dreadful  Condition  of  the  City 
— Aspect  of  the  World — Physically — Morally' — Socially — Politically — Incessant 
Civil  Wars — General  Terror — The  Era  of  Mart^'rdoms — St\'le,  Metaphors,  and 
Meaning  of  the  Apocalypse — Dislike  felt  for  the  Book — Accounted  for  by  the 
Perversions  to  which  it  has  been  Subjected — Strange  Systems  of  Interpretation 
— The  PrEEterists — I'he  Futurists  -The  Historical  Interpreters — Gleams  of 
Tradition  as  to  the  True  View  of  the  Book — Increasing  Conviction  that  it  Dealt 
with  Events  mainly  Contemporary' — Multitudes  of  Fantastic  Guesses — Their 
Extreme  Diversity — Essential  .Sacrednessof  the  Book— Apocalyptic  Literature 
— Necessity  for  its  Cryptographic  Form T. 476-  502 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

THE    APOCALYPSE. 

St.  John  "  the  Theologian  " 502 

Section  \.—  The  Letters  to  the  Se^'eii  Chia-ches.—OwXy -i.  Rapid  Oudine  of  the 
Apocalypse  offered — Sections  of  the  Book — The  Seven  Churches — I'he  Letters 
Normally  Sevenfold — ^The  Letter  to  Ephesus,  8:c. — The  Heresies  alluded  to — 
Theory  that  they  are  Aimed  at  the  Followers  of  St.  Paul — Absurdity  of  the 
Theory— The  Nicolaitans — "'I'he  Depths  of  Satan" — "The  False  Apostles" 
— Volkmar — The  Tubingen  School — Extravagant  Opinions 503-509 

Section  \\.—The  Seals.— 'X\\q.  Vision— The  First  Seal— The  White  Horse  :  The 
Messiah— The  Second  Seal — The  Red  Horse  :  Slaughter — The  Third  Seal — 
'J'he  Black  Horse  :  Famine — "The  Oil  and  the  Wine" — The  Fourth  Seal — 
The  Livid  Horse  :  Pestilence — The  Fifth  .Seal — The  Cry  for  Vengeance — The 
Sixth  Seal — Universal  Catastrophe — .Apocalyptic  Style — ^The  Pause — The  Seal- 
ing of  the  144,000 — Symbols  Iterative  and  Progressive 509-516 

Section  \\\.—The  Trumpets.— The  Censer  Hurled  to  Earth— The  First  Trumpet— 
.Storms,  Earthquakes.  Portents-*-The  Second  Trumpet — The  Burning  Moun- 
tain and  the  Sea  turned  into  lilood — The  Third  Trumpet — The  Star  Absinth — 
The  F«purth  Trumpet — The  Smiting  of  .Sun.  Moon,  and  .Stars — The  Eagle 
screaming  "Woe  I  " — The  Fifth  Trumpet — The  Fallen  Star — The  Scorpion- 
Locusts —  The  .Sixth  Trumpet — Two  Hundred  Million  Horsemen 516-523 

Section  IV.— ^J«  /t/)/j<?f^<-.— The  Sunlike  Angel— The  Seven  Thunders—The  Book 
— The  Measuring — Character  of  the  Symbols — The  Two  Witnesses — The  Earth- 
quake— Difficulties  of  Interpretation — Remarks  on  these  Visions 523-528 

Section  v.— TV/*"  Wild  Beast  from  the  .SV^.— The  Star-Crowned  Woman;  the 
Child  ;  the  Dragon— Meaning  of  the  Symbols — Flight  of  the  Church  to  Pella — 
Certainty  that  by  the  Wild  I'east  from  the  .Sea  is  mainly  meant  the  Emperor 
Nero — The  .Sixteen  Distinctive  Indications — Every  one  of  them  Points  Directly 


CONTENTS.  XVU 

PAGE 

to  Nero  and  the  Roman  Empire — Especially  in  those  Particulars  which  seem 
most  luiigmatical — Widespread  Belief  among  Christians  that  Nero  would  Re- 
turn— The  Number  of  the  F.east — Sole  Element  of  Difficulty  in  it — Ancient 
(niesses — lis  Kabbalistic  Character — Its  Certain  Solution — Commonness  of 
these  Isopsephic  Enigmas — The  Solution  Confirmed  by  the  Ancient  Various 
Reading — The  Helief  about  Nero  Redivivus — A  priori  Dogmas — Domitian 
was  a  Nero  Redivivus .   528-544 

Secpiom  VI.  —  The  Second  Beast  and  the  False  Prophet. — Absence  of  Definite 
Traditions— Ten  Indications  as  to  the  Person  Intended — Idle  Guesses — Vari- 
ous Conjectures — The  Roman  Augurial  System — Simon  Magus — Probability 
that  Vespasian  was  Intended — Remarkable  Adaptation  to  him  of  every  one  of 
the  Ten  Indications,  even  in  the  most  unexpected  Particulars — Possibility  that 
it  is  a  Composite  Symbol — Nero  and  Domitian — The  Name  "Nero"  often 
given  to  Domitian ....    544-554 

Section  VII. — The  Vials — The  Remainder  of  the  Apocalypse — The  Vials— The 
Seventh  Vial— Judgment  of  the  Harlot  City— Paean  over  the  Fall  of  Babylon — 
General  Conception  of  the  Apocalypse 554-557 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

THE   FALL   OF  JERUSALEM. 

Sources  of  the  H'istory— Advance  of  Titus — Rage  and  Despair  of  the  Jews — Destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple— Massacre  and  Devastation — A  Second  Advent — Close  of 
the  /Eon — Tremendous  Significance  of  the  Event — Rightly  Apprehended  by 
Ancient  Christian  Historians-  Effects  of  the  Event  on  the  Mind  of  St.  John — 
How  he  came  to  write  the  Apocalypse — Resemblances  and  Differences  of  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  Fourth  Gospel 557-566 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

THE    GROWTH    OF   HERESY. 

The  Growth  of  Heresy  Gradual— Original  Meaning  of  the  Word— Real  and  Imagin- 
ary Heretics — .Sources  of  Heresy — Sects — Jewish  Sects— Strange  Vitality  of 
Judaism — Rabbinism — A  Nomocracy — Jewish  Sects — Nazarenes — Ebionites — 
Gentile  Sects — Simon  Magus —Legends  of  him — An  Antichrist — Cerinthus — 
His  Errors — Gradual  Rise  of  Docetism — Gnostic  Systems — Gnostics  before 
Gnosticism — Opposite  Tendencies — How  St.  John  met  Heresy 566-577 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

LATER  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  JOHN. 

The  First  Episde  of  St.  John — Christianity  had  Entered  on  a  New  Phase — Specu- 
lations and  Errors— St.  John's  Method  of  Argument — The  Incarnation  of  the 
Divine — Tradition  about  the  Gospel — The  Last  of  the  Apostles — A  New  Era — 
Supreme  Utterances — Righteousness,  Sonship,  Sanctification 577-584 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

THE   STAMP  OF   FINALITY   ON   THE   WRITINGS  OF   ST.    JOHN. 

St.  John  sets  the  Seal  to  Former  Revelations— Stamp  of  Finality  upon  his  Writings 
—The  Idea  of  Eternity — The  Logos—"  God  is  Righteous'' — "  God  is  Light" 
"God  is  Love" — Importance  of  these  Utterances — Simplification  of  Essential 
Elements— St.  Paul  and  St.  John— The  Gospel— The  Episde -Where  Written 
— Tradition — I'one  of  the  Epistle — Dangers  which  St.  John  Contemplates — 
Calm  of  the  Style 584-595 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

CHARACTERISTICS   OF  THE   MIND   AND   STYLE   OF    ST.    JOHN. 

His  Contemplativeness— His  Repose— His  Stvle— His  Sternness— How  Accounted 

for— The  Personal  Question— Ideas  of  Righteousness  and  Love 595-6oi 


CONTENTS. 
CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

OBJECT   AND  OUTLINE   OF  THE   FIRST    EPISTLE. 


PAGE 


Object  of  the  Epistle— Not  Aphoristic— First  Attempts  at  Analysis— Full  Analysis  of 
the  Kpistlc.  showing  its  Remarkable  Symmetry— Illustrates  the  Characteristics 
of  his  Methods— Prevalent  Triplicity  of  Arrangement— Certain  Genuineness  of 
the  Epistle— An  Epistle  not  a  Treatise  602-608 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.   JOHN. 

Section  I. — Eternal  Z//>.— Translation  and  Notes — Introductory  Theme — An 
Apparent  Contradiction— "  God  is  Light" — Meaning  of  the  Phrase— "  Walk- 
ing in  Light" — Translation,  Notes,  Comments — Propitiation — Prevalent  Misun- 
derstandings as  to  the  Style  and  Manner  of  St.  John — Symmetries  of  State- 
ment— Parallels — "Knowing  God"— Love — "Abiding  in  God" — The  New 
and  Old  Commandment — In  what  sense  "New"  and  "Old" — The  Ideal 
and  the  Actual — A  Test  of  Professions— "  Litde  Children,  Fathers,  Young 
Men  " — Meaning  of  the  Passage — Warning  against  Love  of  the  World — What 
is  Meant  by  ''Antichrist" — Prevalence  of  Antichrists — The  Unction  from  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  Christian's  Security— Abiding  in  the  Truth — Eternal  Life. ..   608-626 

Section  W.  — The  Confidence  of  Sonship.  —  (ZoxA.Ac\\cft  of  Sonship  a  Sign  that  we 
Possess  Etemal  Life — The  "Manifestation"  of  Christ— "Children  of  God" — 
How  it  will  be  Tested — Translation  and  Notes — Awful  Conceptions  of  Sin — 
Severity  of  Language — Doing  Righteousness — Love  to  Man  the  Purpose  of  Re- 
velation— Cain — Christ — Perfect  Love — Difficult  Recapitulation— Self-Condem- 
nation — God's  Judgments — Confidence  towards  God  —  Last  Discourses  of 
Christ 626-635 

Section  III.  — 77/<r  Source  of  Sonship. — "Abide  in  Him" — Denial  of  Christ — 
"Testing  the  Spirits" — Confessing  "Christ  come  in  the  FlesH" — Interesting 
Variation  of  Reading — What  is  Meant  by  "Severing  Jesus" — Argument  for 
the  Genuineness  of  the  Reading — The  Recognition  of  God — "  God  is  Love" — 
Summary  and  Gathering  up  of  the  leading  Conceptions.    635-643 

Section  IV. — Assurance. — The  Witnesses — Spurious  Verse — The  Water  and  the 
Hlood — Sevenfold  Witnesses  in  the  Gospel — Witnesses  in  the  Episde — No 
Direct  Allusion  to  the  Sacraments — Distinct  Reference  to  the  Crucifixion- 
Meaning  of  the  Passage — Confirmation  of  the  Divine  Testimony 643-649 

Section  V. —  Conclusion. — Recapitulation — Aim  of  the  Epistle — Prayer — "The  Sin 
unto  Death  " — No  One  Definite  Sin — Desperate  Apostasy  The  Prayer  not 
Forhiddeft — Parallels  in  the  Old  Testament — "Delivering  to  Satan" — The 
Limitation  belongs  to  the  Realm  of  the  Ideal — Rabbi  Meier — Prayer  for  all 
Men — Conclusion  of  the  Episde — "'  Litde  Children,  keep  yourselves  from 
Idols  " 649-658 

CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

THE   SKCOND  EPISTLE   OF    ST.    JOHN. 

Kricf  Christian  Epistles — Probability  of  their  Genuineness — F'xternal  Evidence — Inter- 
nal Evidence-;-John  the  Elder — To  Whom  was  the  Second  Epistle  Addressed — 
Electa? — Kyria? — A  Lady  or  a  Church? — Theory  of  Kishop  Wordsworth — 
Founded  on  very  Uncertain  Hypothesis— Theories  of  German  Critics — Fantas- 
tic and  Untenable— Improbability  of  the  Letter  being  Addressed  to  a  Church— 
'I'he  Address  better  understood  in  its  Simplest  Sense — Where  the  Letter  was 
Written— Analysis— Translation  and  Notes— Keynotes  of  the  Letter — Wrong 
Use  made  of  One  Passage — Sin  of  Dogmatic  Intolerance — Hatred  can  never 
be  a  Christian  Virtue— What  St.  John  really  Meant 659-674 

CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

THE   THIRD  EPISTLE  OF   ST.    JOHN. 

Gaius— Commonness  of  the  Name— Object  of  the  Letter— Translation  and  Notes— 

i'ilioli,  dili^itf  alterutrum 674-677 


APPENDIX. 


TAGE 

Excursus  I.— Asserted  Primacy  of  St.  Peter 678 

Excursus  II. — Patristic  Evidence  of  St.  Peter's  Visit  to  Rome 679 

Excursus  III. — Use  of  the  Name  ' '  Babylon  "  for  Rome  in  i  Peter  v.  13 680 

Excursus  IV. — The  Book  of  Enoch 682 

Excursus  V. — Rabbinic  Allusions  in  St.  Jude 684 

Excursus  VI.— Specimens  of  Philonian  Allegory 686 

Excursus  VII. — Additional  Illustrations  of  Philo's  Views  about  the  Logos 688 

Excursus  VIII.— Patristic  Evidenee  as  to  the  Authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  689 
Excursus  IX. — Minor  Resemblances  between  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Works 

of  Philo 697 

Excursus  X. — "Salem"  and  Jerusalem 699 

Excursus  XI.— The  Altar  of  Incense  and  the  Holiest  Place 700 

Excursus  XII. — Ceremonies  of  the  Day  of  Atonement 701 

Excursus  XIII. — Impressions  left  on  the  Minds  of  the  Jews  by  the  Ceremonies  of  the 

Day  of  Atonement 703 

Excursus  XIV.— The  Identity  of  "John  the  Presbyter"  with  "John  the  Apostle" 705 

Index 725 


THE 

Early  Days  of  Christianity. 


THE     WORLD, 


CHAPTER  I. 

MORAL   CONDITION    OF    THE   WORLD. 


"Quern  vocet  divum  populus  mentis 
Imperi  rebus?  prece  qua  fatigent 
Virgines  sanctae  minus  audientem 
Carmina  Vestam  ?  " 

— HoR.  Od.  I.  ii.  25. 
"  Nona  aetas  agitur  pejoraque  saecula  ferri 
Temporibus,  quorum  sceleri  non  invenit  ipsa 
Nomen,  et  a  nullo  posuit  natura  metallo." 
— Juv.  Sai.  xiii.  28-30, 
"  From  Mummius  to  Augustus  the  Roman  city  stands  as  the  living  mistress  of  a  dead 
world,  and  from  Augustus  to  Theodosius  the  mistress  becomes  as  lifeless  as  her  subjects.'' — 
Frekman's  Essays,  ii.  330. 

The  epoch  which  w^itnessed  the  early  growth  of  Christian- 
ity was  an  epoch  of  which  the  horror  and  tlie  degradation 
have  rarely  been  equalled,  and  perhaps  never  exceeded,  in 
the  annals  of  mankind.  Were  we  to  form  our  sole  estimate 
of  it  from  the  lurid  picture  of  its  wickedness,  which  St.  Paul 
in  more  than  one  passage  has  painted  with  a  few  powerful 
strokes,  we  might  suppose  that  we  were  judging  it  from  too 
lofty  a  standpoint.  We  might  be  accused  of  throwing  too 
dark  a  shadow  upon  the  crimes  of  Paganism,  wlien  we  set 
it  as  a  foil  to  the  lustre  of  an  ideal  holiness.  But  even  if  St. 
Paul  had  never  paused  amid  his  sacred  reasonings  to  affix 


2  THE    EAKLV    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

his  terrible  brand  upon  the  pride  of  Heathenism,  there 
would  still  have  been  abundant  proofs  of  the  abnormal 
wickedness  which  accompanied  the  decadence  of  ancient 
civilisation.  They  are  stamped  upon  its  coinage,  cut  on  its 
gems,  painted  upon  its  chamber-walls,  sown  broadcast  over 
the  pages  of  its  poets,  satirists,  and  historians.  "  Out  of 
thine  own  mouth  will  I  judge  thee,  thou  wicked  servant  !" 
Is  there  any  age  which  stands  so  instantly  condemned  by 
the  bare  mention  of  its  rulers  as  that  which  recalls  the  suc- 
cessive names  of  Tiberius,  Gains,  Claudius,  Nero,  Galba, 
Otho,  and  Vitellius,  and  which  after  a  brief  gleam  of  better 
examples  under  Vespasian  and  Titus,  sank  at  last  under  the 
hideous  tyranny  of  a  Domitian  ?  Is  there  any  age  of  which 
the  evil  characteristics  force  themselves  so  instantaneously 
upon  the  mind  as  that  of  which  we  mainly  learn  the  history 
and  moral  condition  from  the  relics  of  Pompeii  and  Hercu- 
laneum,  the  satires  of  Persius  and  Juvenal,  the  epigrams  of 
Martial,  and  the  terrible  records  of  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  and 
Dion  Cassius  ?  And  yet  even  beneath  this  lowest  deep, 
there  is  a  lower  deep  ;  for  not  even  on  their  dark  pnges  are 
the  depths  of  Satan  so  shamelessly  laid  bare  to  human  gaze 
as  they  are  in  the  sordid  fictions  of  Petronius  and  of  Apu- 
leius.  But  to  dwell  upon  the  crimes  and  the  retributive 
misery  of  that  period  is  happily  not  my  duty.  I  need  but 
make  a  passing  allusion  to  its  enormous  wealth  ;  its  un- 
bounded self-indulgence  ;  its  coarse  and  tasteless  luxiuy  ; 
its  greedy  avarice  ;  its  sense  of  insecurity  and  terror  ;  ^  its 
apathy,  debauchery,  and  cruelty  ;  ^  its  hopeless  fatalism  ;  ^ 
its  unspeakable  sadness  and  weariness  ;*  its  strange  extrav- 
agances alike  of  infidelity  and  of  superstition.^ 

At  the  lowest  extreme  of  the  social  scale  were  millions  of 
slaves,  without  family,  without  religion,  without  possessions, 
who  had  no  recognised  rights,  and  towards  whom  none  had 
any  recognised  duties,  passing  normally  from  a  childhood 
of  degradation  to  a  manhood  of  hardship,  and  an  old  age  of 


*  2  Cor.  vii.  lo  ;  "  Intercidenit  sortis  humanae  commcrcium  vi  mctiis,"  Tac.  A?i».  vi.  19  ; 
"  Pavor  iiuernus  occiipavcrat  animos,"  tei.  iv.  76.  See  the  very  remarkable  passage  of  Pliny 
("At  Hercnle  homini  pliirima  ex  homine  mala  sunt,"  //.  N.  vii.  i). 

'■I  M.art.  y?/.  ii.  66;   Jiiv.  vi.  491. 

'  Lucan,  Phars.  i.  70.  81  ;  Suet.  Tib.  69;  Tac.  Agric.  42  :  Ann.  iii.  18,  iv.  26  :  "  Sed 
mihi  hacc  et  talia  audienti  in  incerto  judicium  est,  fatone  res  mortalium  et  necessitate  immu- 
Ubili  an  forte  volvantur,"  Ann.  vi.  22  :   Pliii.  /A  N.  ii.  7  ;   Sen.  Df  Bene/,  iv.  7. 

*  Tacitus,  witli  all  his  resources,  finds  it  difficult  to  vary  his  language  in  describing  so 
many  suicides. 

»  Sec  my  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  p.  loi  ;  Seekers  after  God,  p.  38.  The  "  tau- 
robolies"  and  "  kriolwlics"  (baths  in  the  blood  of  bulls  and  rams)  mark  the  extreme  sensual- 
ity of  superstition.  Sec  Dollingcr,  Gentile  and  Jew,  ii.  179;  De  Pressense,  Trois  Premiers 
Siicles,  li.  1-60,  etc. 


MORAL  C(;ndit:on  ok  the  world.  3 

unpitied  neglect.'  Only  a  little  above  the  slaves  stood  the 
lower  classes,  who  formed'  the  vast  majority  of  the  freeborn 
inhabitants  of  the  Roman  Empire.  They  were,  for  the  most 
part,  beggars  and  idlers,  familiar  with  the  grossest  indig- 
nities of  an  unscrupulous  dependence.  Despising  a  life  of 
honest  industry,  they  asked  only  for  bread  and  the  games 
of  the  Circus,  and  were  ready  to  support  any  government, 
even  the  most  despotic,  if  it  would  supply  these  needs. 
They  spent  their  mornings  in  lounging  about  the  Forum,  or 
in  dancing  attendance  at  the  levees  of  patrons,  for  a  share 
in  whose  largesses  they  daily  struggled."'  They  spent  their 
afternoons  and  evenings  in  gossiping  at  the  Public  Baths,  in 
listlessly  enjoying  the  polluted  plays  of  the  theatre,  or  look- 
ing with  fierce  thrills  of  delighted  horror  at  the  bloody  sports 
of  the  arena.  At  night,  they  crept  up  to  their  miserable 
garrets  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  stories  of  the  huge  insulce — 
the  lodging-houses  of  Rome — into  which,  as  into  the  low 
lodging-houses  of  the  poorer  quarters  of  London,  there 
drifted  all  that  was  most  wretched  and  most  vile."  Their 
life,  as  it  is  described  for  us  by  their  contemporaries,  was 
largely  made  up  of  squalor,  misery,  and  vice. 

Immeasurably  removed  from  these  needy  and  greedy 
freemen,  and  living  chiefly  amid  crowds  of  corrupted  and 
obsequious  slaves,  stood  the  constantly  diminishing  throng 
of  the  wealthy  and  the  noble.*  Every  age  in  its  decline  has 
exhibited  the  spectacle  of  selfish  luxury  side  by  side  w4th 
abject  poverty  ;  of — 

"Wealth,  a  monster  gorged 
,  Mid  starving  populations  :" — 

but  nowhere,  and  at  no  period,  were  these  contrasts  so  start- 
ling as  they  w^ere  in  Imperial  Rome.  There  a  whole  popu- 
lation might  be  trembling  lest  they  should  be  starved  by  the 

'  Some  of  the  loci  classic  i  on  Roman  slavery  are:  Cic.  De  Rep.  xiv.  23  ;  Jiiv.  vi.  219,  x. 
183,  xiv.  16-24  ;  Sen.  Ep.  47 ;  De  Ira,  iii.  35,  40  ;  De  Clem.  18  ;  Controv.  v.  33  ;  De  I'it. 
Beat.  17  ;  Plin.  H.  N.  xxxiii.  11  ;  Plut.  Cato,  21.  Vedius  PolHo  and  the  lampreys  (Plin. 
H.  N'.  ix,  23).  In  the  debate  on  the  murder  of  Pedanius  Secundus  (Tac.  Ann.  xiv.  42-45) 
many  eminent  senators  openly  advocated  the  brutal  law  that  when  a  master  was  murdered, 
his  slaves,  often  to  the  number  of  himdreds,  should  be  put  to  death.  These  facts,  and  many 
others,  will  be  found  collected  in  Wallon.  De  I' Esclavage  dans  l" Antiguite ;  Friedlander, 
Sittcngesch.  Ronis  ;  Becker,  Gallus,  E.  T.  109-225;  Dollinger,  Jndenth.  ii.  Heidenth.  ix. 
I.  §  2.  It  is  reckoned  that  in  the  Empire  there  cannot  have  been  fewer  than  60,000,000  slaves 
(Le  Maistre,  Du  Pape.,  \.  283).  They  were  so  numerous  as  to  be  divided  according  to  their 
nationalities  (Tac.  Ann.  iii.  53),  and  every  slave  was  regarded  as  a  potential  enemy  (Sen. 
Ep.  xlvii.). 

2  Suet.  Ner.  16  ;  Mart.  iv.  8,  vili.  50  ;  Juv.  i.  100,  128.  iii.  269,  etc. 

^  Juv.  Sat.  iii.  60-65  '•  Athen.  i.  17,  §  36  ;  Tac.  Anti.  xv.  44,  "quo  cuncta  undique  atrocia 
ant  pudenda  confluimt : "  Vitruv.  ii.  8  ;  Suet.  Ner.  38.  There  were  44,000  insulae  \\\  Rome 
to  only  1,780  do/nus  (Becker.  Callus,  E.  T.,  p.  232). 

■'  Among  the  1,200,000  inhabitants  of  ancient  Rome,  even  in  Cicero's  time,  there  were 
scarcely  2,000  proprietors  (Cic.  De  OJ/.  ii.  21). 


4  Till:    LARLV    DAVS    UF    Clikibi  I  AN  L 1  V. 

delay  of  an  Alexandrian  corn-ship,  while  the  upper  classes 
were  squandering  a  fortune  at  a -single  banquet,'  drinking 
out  of  myrrhine  and  jewelled  vases  worth  hundreds  of 
pounds,"  and  feasting  on  the  brains  of  peacocks  and  the 
tongues  of  nightingales.^  As  a  consequence  disease  was 
rife,  men  were  short-lived,  and  even  women  became  liable  to 
gout/  Over  a  large  part  of  Italy,  most  of  the  freeborn 
population  had  to  content  themselves,  even  in  winter,  with 
a  tunic,  and  the  luxury  of  a  toga  was  reserved  only,  by  way 
of  honour,  to  the  corpse.'^  Yet  at  this  very  time,  the  dress 
of  Roman  ladies  displayed  an  unheard-of  splendour.  The 
elder  Pliny  tells  us  that  he  himself  saw  LoUia  Paulina 
dressed  for  a  betrothal  feast  in  a  robe  entirely  covered  with 
pearls  and  emeralds,  which  had  cost  forty  million  sesterces,^ 
and  which  was  known  to  be  less  costly  than  some  of  her 
other  dresses/  Gluttony,  caprice,  extravagance,  ostenta- 
tion, impurity,  rioted  in  the  heart  of  a  society  which  knew 
of  no  other  means  by  which^to  break  the  monotony  of  its 
weariness,  or  alleviate  the  anguish  of  its  despair. 

"  On  that  hard  Pagan  world  disgust 

And  secret  loathing  fell ; 
Deep  weariness  and  sated  lust 

Made  human  life  a  hell. 
In  his  cool  hall,  with  haggard  eyes, 

The  Roman  noble  lay  ; 
He  drove  abroad  in  furious  guise 

Along  the  Appian  Way  ; 
He  made  a  feast,  drank  fierce  and  fast. 

And  crowned  his  hair  with  flowers — 
No  easier  nor  no  quicker  past 

The  impracticable  hours."' 

At  the  summit  of  thew^hole  decaying  system — necessary, 
yet  detested — elevated  indefinitely  above  the  very  highest, 
yet  living  in  dread  of  the  very  lowest,  oppressing  a  popula- 
tion which  he  terrified,  and  terrified  by  the  population  w^iich 
he  oppressed® — was  an  Emperor,  raised  to  the  divinest  pin- 

'  See  Tac.  Ann.  iii.  55.  400,000  sesterces  (Juv.  xi.  19).  Taking  the  standard  of  100,000 
sesterces  to  be  in  the  Augustan  age  ;^i,o8o  (which  is  a  litde  below  the  calculation  of  Hultsch), 
this  would  be  ;{|4,32o.  30,000,000  sesterces  (Sen.  lip.  xcv.;  Sen.  ad  Helv.  9).  In  the  days 
of  Tiberius  three  mullets  had  sold  for  30,000  sesterces  (Suet.  Tib.  34).  Even  ni  the  days  of 
Pom^'cy  Romans  had  adopted  the  disgusting  practice  of  preparing  for  a  dinner  by  taking  an 
emetic.  Vitellius  set  on  the  table  at  one  banquet  2,000  fish  and  7,000  birds,  and  in  less  than 
eiglit  months  spent  in  feasts  a  sum  that  would  now  amount  to  several  millions. 

2  Plin.  //.  N.  viii.  48,  x.wvii.  18. 

»  "  Portenta  luxuriac,"  Sen.  Ef>.  ex.;  Plin.  H.  N.  ix.  18,  32,  x.  51,  72.  Petron.  93  ;  Juv. 
X"-  1-55.  V.  92-100  ;  Macrob.  Sat.  iii.  12,  13  ;  Sen.  Ep.  lx.\.\ix.  21  ;  Mart.  Ep.  l.\x.  5  ;  Lam- 
pridius,  P.lagab,  20  ;  Suet.  Vitell.  13.  On  the  luxury  of  the  age  in  general,  see  Sen.  De 
lirev.  yit.  12  ;   Ep.  xcv. 

*  Sen.  /i/*.  xcv.  15-29.    At  Herculaneum  many  of  the  rolls  discovered  were  cookery  books. 

*  Juv.  i.  171  ;  Mart.  ix.  58,  8.  a  ^432,000. 

^  Pliny,  //.  A',  ix.  35,  56.     He  also  saw  Agrippina  in  a  robe  of  gold  libsue,  id.  xxxiii.  19. 
"  Juv.  iv.  153  :  Suet.  Domit.  17. 


MORAL    CONDITION    OF     THE    WORLD.  5 

nacle  of  autocracy,  yet  conscious  that  his  life  hung  upon  a 
thread;' — an  Emperor  who,  in  the  terrible  phrase  of  Gib- 
bon, was  at  once  a  priest,  an  atheist,  and  a  god." 

ilie  general  condition  of  society  was  such  as  might  have 
been  expected  from  the  existence  of  these  elements.  The 
Romans  had  entered  on  a  stage  of  fatal  degeneracy  from 
the  first  day  of  their  close  intercourse  with  Greece.^  Greece 
learnt  from  Rome  her  cold-blooded  cruelty  ;  Rome  learnt 
from  Greece  her  voluptuous  corruption.  Family  life  among 
the  Romans  had  once  been  a  sacred  thing,  and  for  5  20  years 
divorce  had  been  unknown  among  them."  Under  the  Em- 
pire marriage  had  come  to  be  regarded  with  disfavour  and 
disdain.^  Women,  as  Seneca  says,  married  in  order  to  be 
divorced,  and  were  divorced  in  order  to  marry ;  and  noble 
Roman  matrons  counted  the  years  not  by  the  Consuls,  but 
by  their  discarded  or  discarding  husbands.  ° 

To  have  a  family  was  regarded  as  a  misfortune,  because 
the  childless  were  courted  with  extraordinary  assiduity  by 
crowds  of  fortune-hunters.'  When  there  were  children  in  a 
family,  their  education  w^as  left  to  be  begun  under  the  tutel- 
age of  those  slaves  who  were  otherwise  the  most  decrepit 
and  useless,*  and  was  carried  on,  with  results  too  fatally 
obvious,  by  supple,  accomplished,  and  abandoned  Greek- 
lings.^  But  indeed  no  system  of  education  could  have 
eradicated  the  influence  of  the  domestic  circle.  No  care  '" 
could  have  prevented  the  sons  and  daughters  of  a  wealthy 
family  from  catching  the  contagion  of  the  vices  of  which 
they  saw  in  their  parents  a  constant  and  unblushing  ex- 
ample.'' 

Literature  and  art  were  infected  with  the  prevalent  degra- 
dation.    Poetry  sank   in  great   measure    into    exaggerated 

'  Tac.  Aftn.  vi.  6  ;  Suet.  Claud.  35,. 

2  "Coelum  decretum,"  Tac.  Ann.  i.  73;  "  Dis  aequa  potestas  Cacsaris,"  Juv.  iv.  yr  ; 
P!in.  Pajieg.  74-5,  "  Civitas  nihil  felicitati  suae  putat  adstrui,  posse  nisi  ut  Di  Caesarem 
imitenticr."  (Cf.  Suet.  Jjil.  88  ;  Tif'.  13,  58  ;  Aug.  59  :  Calig.^T,  ;  Ves/>.  23  ;  Domit.  13.) 
Lucan,  vii.  456  ;  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Gaiunt  passim  ;  Dion  Cass.  Ixiii.  5,  20;  Martial, /(JJj/w  ; 
Tert.  Apol.  33,  34  ;   Boissier,  La  Rel.  Romaine,  i.  122-208. 

3  The  degeneracy  is  specially  traceable  in  their  literature  from  the  days  of  Plautus  onwards. 
<  The  first  Roman  recorded  to  have  divorced  his  wife  was  Sp,  Carvilius  Ruga,  B.C.  234 

(Dionys.  ii.  25  ;  Aul.  Cell.  xvii.  21). 

^  Hor.  Od.  iii.  6.  17.  ''Raraque  in  hoc  aevo  quae  velit  esse  parens,"  Ov.  Kux.  i$. 
Hence  the  Le.\  Papia  Poppaea,  the  Jus  trium  liberorum,  etc.  Suet.  Oct.  34  ;  Aul.  Gell.  i.  6. 
See  Champagny,  Lcs  CSsars.  i.  258,  si-q. 

*  "  Non  consulum  nuniero  sed  maritorum  annos  sues  computant,"  Sen.  De  Bene/,  iii.  16  ; 
"  Repudium  jam  votum  erat,  et  quasi  matrimonii  fructus,"  Tert.  AJ>ol.  6 ;  "  Corruinpere  et 
corrumpi  saeculum  vocatur,"  'Pac.  Germ.  19.     Comp.  Suet.  Calig.  34. 

■^  Tac.  Germ.  20;  Ann.  xiii.  52  ;  Piin.  //.  N.  xiv.  J>ro(VMt ;  Sen.  ad  Marc.  Consol.  19; 
Plin.  Kpf>.  iv.  i6  ;  Juv.  Sat,  xii.  114,  seq. 

«  Plut.  De  Lih.  Educ.  «  Juv.  vil.  187,  219.  ^^  Juv.  Sat.  xiv. 

11  Juv.  Sat,  xiv.  passim;  Tac.  De  Oral.  28,  29  ;  Quinct.  i.  s  ;  Sen.  De  Ird,  ii.  sa  ;  Jip.  95. 


6  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRlSTlAxMTY. 

satire,  hollow  declamation,  or  frivolous  epigrams.  Art  was 
partly  corrupted  by  the  fondness  for  glare,  expensiveness, 
and  size,'  and  partly  sank  into  miserable  triviality,  or  im- 
moral prettinesses,'"'  such  as  those  which  decorated  the  walls 
of  Pompeii  in  the  first  century,  and  the  Pare  aux  Cerfs  in 
the  eighteenth.  Greek  statues  of  the  days  of  Phidias  were 
ruthlessly  decapitated,  that  their  heads  might  be  replaced 
by  the  scowling  or  imbecile  figures  of  a  Gains  or  a  Claudius. 
Nero,  professing  to  be  a  connoisseur,  thought  that  he  im- 
proved the  Alexander  of  Lysimachus  by  gilding  it  from 
head  to  foot.  Eloquence,  deprived  of  every  legitimate  aim, 
and  used  almost  solely  for  purposes  of  insincere  display, 
was  tempted  to  supply  the  lack  of  genuine  fire  by  sonorous 
euphoi;y  and  theatrical  affectation.  A  training  in  rhetoric 
was  now  understood  to  be  a  training  in  the  art  of  emphasis 
and  verbiage,  which  was  rarely  used  for  any  loftier  purpose 
than  to  make  sycophancy  plausible,  or  to  embellish  sophis- 
try with  speciousness.^  The  Drama,  even  in  Horace's  days, 
liad  degenerated  into  a  vehicle  for  the  exhibition  of  scenic 
splendour  or  ingenious  machinery.  Dignity,  wit,  pathos, 
were  no  longer  expected  on  the  stage,  for  the  dramatist  was 
eclipsed  by  the  swordsman  or  the  rope-dancer.*  The  actors 
who  absorbed  the  greatest  part  of  popular  favour  were  pan- 
tomimists,  whose  insolent  prosperity  was  generally  in  direct 
proportion  to  the  infamy  of  their  character.^  And  while 
the  shamclessness  of  the  theatre  corrupted  the  purity  of  all 
classes  from  the  earliest  age,"  the  hearts  of  the  multitude 
were  made  hard  as  the  nether  millstone  with  brutal  insensi- 
bility, by  the  fury  of  the  circus,  the  atrocities  of  the  amphi- 
theatre, and  the  cruel  orgies  of  the  games.''     Augustus,  in 

>  It  was  tlic  age  of  Colossi  (Plin.  H.  N.  xxxiv.  7  ;  Mart.  Ej>.  i.  71,  viii.  44  ;  Stat.  Sylv.  i. 
I,  etc.). 

2  'Poijrovpai^i'a.  Cic.  Att.  xv.  16  ;  Plin.  xxxv.  37.  See  Champagny,  Les  Cisars,  iv.  138, 
who  refers  to  Vitruv.  vii.  5  ;  Propert.  ii.  5  ;  Plin.  H.  N.  xiv.  22,  and  xxxv.  10  (the  painter 
Arellius,  etc.). 

3Tac.  Dial.  36-41  ;  Ann.  xv.  71 ;  Sen.  Ef>.  cvi.  12  ;  Petron.  Satyr.  \.  Dion  Cass.  li.\.  :o. 

<  Tuv.  .viv.  250  ;  Suet.  Nero,  11  ;   Galh.  6. 

»  Mncstcr  (Tac.  Ann.  xi.  4,  36)  ;  Paris  (Juv.  vi.  87,  vii.  88)  ;  Alituius  (Jos.  Vit.  ^)  ; 
Pylades  (Z.-sim.  i.  6)  ;  Kathyllus  (Dion  Cass.  liv.  17  ;  Tac.  Ann.  i.  54^        ^  Isidor.  xviii.  39. 

'  "  Mcra  humicidia  sunt,"  Sen.  Kp.  vii.  2  ;  "Nihil  est  nobis  .  .  .  cum  insania  circi,  cum 
impudicitia  tlieatri.  cum  .-itrocitatc  arenae,  cum  vanitate  xysti,"  Tert.  Apol.  38.  Cicero  m- 
dined  to  the  prohibition  of  games  which  imperilled  life  {De  I.eg^g.  ii.  15),  and  Seneca  (/.  r.) 
expressed  lii-i  compassionate  disapproval,  and  exposed  the  falsehood  and  sophism  of  the  plea 
that  after  ail  the  suftcrers  were  only  criminals.  Yet  in  the  days  of  Claudius  the  number  of 
those  thus  butchered  was  so  great  that  the  statue  of  Augustus  had  to  be  moved  that  it  might 
not  constanily  be  covered  with  a  veil  (r)ion  Cass.  Ix.  13,  who  in  the  same  chapter  mentions  a 
lion  that  had  hce-n  trained  to  devour  men).  In  Claudius's  sham  sea-fight  we  are  told  that  the 
incredible  number  of  19,000  men  fought  each  other  (lac.  Ann.  xii.  56).  Titus,  the  "darling 
of  the  human  racof**  in  one  day  brought  into  the  theatre  5,000  wild  beasts  (Suet.  Tit.  7).  and 
butchered  thousand*  of  Jew*  in  th«  games  at  lierytus.  In  Trajan's  games  (Dion  Cass,  l.wiii. 
lij  ii.oco  animals  and  ic,ooo  men  had  to  fight. 


MORAL    CONDITION    OF   THE    WORLD.  / 

the  document  annexed  to  his  will,  mentioned  that  he  had 
exhibited  8,000  gladiators  and  3,510  wild  beasts.  The  old 
warlike  spirit  of  the  Romans  was  dead  among  the  gilded 
youth  of  families  in  which  distinction  of  any  kind  was  cer- 
tain to  bring  down  upon  its  most  prominent  members  the 
murderous  suspicion  of  irresponsible  despots.  The  spirit 
which  had  once  led  tlie  Domitii  and  the  Fabii  "  to  drink 
deliglit  of  battle  with  their  peers  "  on  the  plains  of  Gaul  and 
in  the  forests  of  Germany,  was  now  satiated  by  gazing  on 
criminals  fighting  for  dear  life  with  bears  and  tigers,  or  upon 
bands  of  gladiators  who  hacked  each  other  to  pieces  on  the 
encrimsoned  sand.*  The  languid  enervation  of  the  delicate 
and  dissolute  aristocrat  could  only  be  amused  by  magnifi- 
cence and  stimulated  by  grossness  or  by  blood.'^  Thus  the 
gracious  illusions  by  which  true  Art  has  ever  aimed  at  purg- 
ing the  passions  of  terror  and  pity,  were  extinguished  by 
the  realism  of  tragedies  ignobly  horrible,  and  comedies  in- 
tolerably base.  Two  phrases  sum  up  the  characteristics  of 
Roman  civilisation  in  the  days  of  the  Empire — heartless 
cruelty,  and  unfathomable  corruption.^ 

If  there  had  been  a  refuge  anywhere  for  the  sentiments 
of  outraged  virtue  and  outraged  humanity,  we  might  have 
hoped  to  find  it  in  the  Senate,  the  members  of  which  were 
heirs  of  so  many  noble  and  austere  traditions.  But — even 
in  the  days  of  Tiberius — the  Senate,  as  Tacitus  tells  us,  had 
rushed  headlong  into  the  most  servile  flattery,*  and  this 
would  not  have  been  possible  if  its  members  had  not  been 
tainted  by  the  prevalent  deterioration.  It  was  before  the 
once  grave  and  pure-minded  Senators  of  Rome — the  great- 
ness of  whose  state  was  founded  on  the  sanctity  of  family 
relationships— that  the  Censor  Metellus  had  declared  in 
A.u.c.  602,  Avithout  one  dissentient  murmur,  that  marriage 
could  only  be  regarded  as  an  intolerable  necessity.^  Before 
that  same  Senate,  at  an  earlier  period,  a  leading  Consular 
had  not  scrupled  t©  assert  that  there  was  scarcely  one  among 
them  all  who  had  not  ordered  one  or  more  of  his  own  infant 


1  Suit.  Claud.  14,  21,  34  ;  .Ycr.  12  ;    Calig.  35  ;  Tac.  Ann.  xiii.  .49  ;   Plin.  Paneg.  33. 
'■^ 'rac.  Atin.  XV.  32. 

3  Eph.  IV.  19  .  2  Cor.  vii.  10.     Merivale,  vi.  452  ;  Champagny.  Les  CSsars,  iv.    161,  seg. 
Seiieca,  describing  the  age  in  the  tragedy  of  Octavia,  says  ; — 

"  Saecnlo  premimur  gravi 
Quo  scelera  regnant,  saevit  impietas  furens,"  etc. 
—Oct.  379-437- 
*  Tac.  Ann.  Hi.  65,  vi.  2,  xiv.  12,  13,  etc. 
'  Cump.    lac.  A»-i.  ii.  37,  38.  ill.  34,  35.  xv.  19  ;    Aiil.  Gel!.  .V.  .-l.  i.  6  ;   Liv.  Ej^it.  f^. 


8  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

children  to  be  exposed  to  death/  In  the  hearing  of  that 
same  Senate  in  a.d,  59,  not  long  before  St.  Paul  wrote  his 
letter  to  Philemon,  C.  Cassius  Longinus  had  gravely  argued 
that  the  only  security  for  the  life  of  masters  was  to  put  into 
execution  the  sanguinary  Silanian  Law,  which  enacted  that, 
if  a  master  was  murdered,  every  one  of  his  slaves,  hoAvever 
numerous,  however  notoriously  innocent,  should  be  indis- 
criminately massacred.^  It  was  the  Senators  of  Rome  who 
thronged  forth  to  meet  with  adoring  congratulations  the 
miserable  youth  who  came  to  them  with  his  hands  reeking 
with  the  blood  of  matricide.^  They  offered  thanksgivings 
to  the  gods  for  his  worst  cruelties,*  and  obediently  voted 
Divine  honours  to  the  dead  infant,  four  months  old,  of  the 
wife  whom  he  afterwards  killed  with  a  brutal  kick.^ 

And  what  was  the  religion  of  a  period  w^hich  needed 
the  sanctions  and  consolations  of  religion  more  deeply  than 
any  age  since  the  world  began  ?  It  is  certain  that  the  old 
Paganism  was — except  in  country  places — practically  dead. 
The  very  fact  that  it  was  necessary  to  prop  it  up  by  the  but- 
tress of  political  interference  shows  how  hollow  and  ruinous 
the  structure  of  classic  Polytheism  had  become.®  The  de- 
crees and  reforms  of  Claudius  were  not  likely  to  reassure 
the  faith  of  an  age  which  had  witnessed  in  contemptuous 
silence,  or  with  frantic  adulation,  the  assumption  by  Gains 
of  the  attributes  of  deity  after  deity,  had  tolerated  his  insults 
against  their  sublimest  objects  of  worship,  and  encouraged 
his  claim  to  a  living  apotheosis.'  The  upper  classes  were 
"destitute  of  faith,  yet  terrified  at  scepticism."  They  had 
long  learned  to  treat  the  current  mythology  as  a  mass  of 
worthless  fables,  scarcely  amusing  enough  for  even  a  school- 
boy's laughter,^  but  they  were  the  ready  dupes  of  every  wan- 
dering quack  who  chose  to  assume  the  character  of  a  mathema- 

'  This  abandonment  of  children  was  a  norvtal  practice  (Ter.  Heaut.  iv.  i,  37  ;  Ovid, 
Amor.  ii.  14;  Suet.  Calig.  5  ;  Oct.  65  ;  Juv.  Sat.  vi.  592  ;  Plin.  Ep.  iv.  15  [comp.  ii.  20].; 
Sen.  ad  Marciam,  19  ;  Controv.  x.  6).  Augustine  [Dc  Civ.  Dei.,  iv.  11)  tells  us  that  there 
was  a  goddess  /^^wa«rt,  so  called  "quia  levat  infantes  ;  "  if  the  father  did  not  take  the  new- 
born child  in  his  arms,  it  was  exposed  (Tac.  Hist.  v.  5  ;  Germ.  19  ;  Tert.  Apol.  9  :  Ad  Nat t. 
15;  Minuc.  Pel.  Octav.  xxx.  31  ;  .Stobaen's  Floril.  Ixxv.  15  ;  Epictet.  i.  23  ;  Paulus,  Dig;. 
x.w.  3,  etc.     .^nd  see  Denis,  Idees  morales  datis  PAntiquiti,  ii.  203). 

2  rac.  Ann.  xiv.  43/  44  ;  v.  supra,  p.  3. 

3  Tac.  Attn.  xiv.  13  :    "  festo  cultii  Senatum." 

*  "  Qiioticns  fugas  et  caedes  jussit  princeps,  totiens  gratis  Deis  actas,"  Tac.  Ann.  xiv.  64. 

'  Tac.  Ann.  xvi.  6  ;  Suet.  Ner.  25  ;  Dion  Cass.  Ixii.  27.  8  Suet.  Tib.  36. 

^  Suet.  Calig.  51.  See  Mart.  Rp.  v.  8,  where  he  talks  of  the  "edict  of  our  Lord  and 
God,"  ?>.,  of  Domitian ;  and  vii.  60,  where  he  says  that  he  shall  pray  to  Domitian,  and  not 
to  Jupiter. 

*  "  Esse  aliquos  manes  ct  subterranea  regna  .  .  . 

Nee  pueri  credunt  niiii  qui  nonduni  acre  lavantur." 

— J\iv.  Sat.  ii.  149,  152. 


MORAL   CONDlTrON    OF  THE    WORLD.  9 

ticus  or  njnage.^  Their  official  religion  was  a  decrepit  The- 
ogony  ;  tiieir  real  religion  was  a  vague  and  credulous  fatal- 
ism, which  disbelieved  in  the  existence  of  the  gods,  or  held 
with  Epicurus  that  they  were  careless  of  mankind.^  The 
mass  of  the  populace  either  accorded  to  the  old  beliefs  a 
nominal  adherence  which  saved  them  the  trouble  of  giving 
any  thought  to  the  matter,^  and  reduced  their  creed  and 
their  morals  to  a  survival  of  national  habits  ;  or  else  they 
plunged  with  eager  curiosity  into  the  crowd  of  foreign 
cults* — among  which  a  distorted  Judaism  took  its  place^ — 
such  as  made  the  Romans  familiar  wnth  strange  names  like 
Sabazius  and  Anchialus,  Agdistis,  Isis,  and  the  Syrian  god- 
dess." All  men  joined  in  the  confession  that  "the  oracles 
were  dumb."  It  hardly  needed  the  wail  of  mingled  lamen- 
tations as  of  departing  deities  which  swept  over  the  aston- 
ished crew  of  the  vessel  off  Palodes  to  assure  the  world  that 
the  reign  of  the  gods  of  Hellas  was  over — that  ''Great  Pan 
w^as  dead." '' 

Such  are  the  scenes  which  we  must  witness,  such  are  the 
sentiments  with  which  we  must  become  familiar,  the  moment 
that  we  turn  away  our  eyes  from  the  spectacle  of  the  little 
Christian  churches,  composed  chiefly  as  yet  of  slaves  and  arti- 
sans, who  had  been  taught  to  imitate  a  Divine  example  of  hu- 
mility and  sincerity, of  purity  and  love.  There  were,  indeed, 
a  few  among  the  Heathen  w4io  lived  nobler  lives  and  pro- 
fessed a  purer  ideal  than  the  Pagans  around  them.  Here 
and  there  in  the  ranks  of  the  philosophers  a  Demetrius,  a 
Musonius  Rufus,  an  Epictetus ;  here  and  there  among 
Senators  an  Plelvidius  Priscus,  a  Paetus  Thrasea,  a  Barea 
Soranus  ;  here  and  there  among  literary  men  a  Seneca  or  a 
Persius — showed  that  virtue  was  not  yet  extinct.  But  the 
Stoicism  on  which  they  leaned  for  support  amid  the  terrors 
and  temptations  of  that  awful  epoch  utterly  failed  to  provide 
a  remedy  against  the  universal  degradation.  It  aimed  at 
cherishing  an  insensibility  which  gave  no  reqj  comfort,  and 


Tac.  //.  i.  22;  Aft?t.  vi.  20,  21,  xii.  68  ;  Juv,  Sai.  xiv.  248,  iii.  42,  vii.  200,  etc.;  Suet. 
04  ;   Ti'i.  14  ;  A't-r.  26;   Oi/io,  4;  Doinit.  15,  etc. 
Lucr.  vi.  445-455  ;  Juv.  Sat.  vii.  189-202,  x.  129,  xiii.  86-89  ;  Piin.  H.N.  ii.  21  ;  Quinct. 


Aug.  04  ;   Tib.  14  ;  Ner.  26;   Otho,_  4;  Doinit.  15,  etc 

2  Lucr.  vi.  445-455  ;  Juv.  Sat.  vii.  189-202,  x.  129,  xiii.  86-89  ;  P 
Instt.  v.  6,  §  3  :  Tac.  H.  i.  lo-tS,  ii.  69-82;  A^-ic.  13  ;    Germ,  33  ;  Ann.  vi.  22,  etc 


3  Juv.  Sat.  iii.  144,  vi.  342,  xiii.  75-83. 

<  "  Nee  turba  deorum  talis  ut  est  hodie,"  Juv.  Sat  xiii.  46  ;  "  Ignobilem  Deorum  turbatn 
quam  lon^o  aevo  longa  superstitio  congcssit."  Sen.  P.p.  110.  See  Boissier,  Lis  Religions 
Etrangires  [Rel.  Ron.  i.  374-450)  ;   Liv.  xxxix.  8  ;  Tac.  Ann.  ii.  85  ;  Val.  Max.  I.  iii.  2. 

^  Juv.  Sat.  xiv.  <>6-io6  ;   Jos.  Antt.  xviii.  3  ;   Pers.  Sat.  v.  180. 

•>  Cic.  De  Legg.  li.  8  ;  De  Div.  ii.  24  ;  Ten.  ad  Natt.  i.  10;.  Juv.  Sat.  xiv.  263,  xv.  1-52. 

^  Plut.  De  D>'/.  Orac,  p.  419.  Some  Christian  writers  ponnect  this  remarkable  story  with 
the  date  of  the  Crucifixion.      See  Niedner,  l.elirbiicJi  d.  Chr.  K.  C.  p.  64. 


lO  THE   EARLY    DAVS   OF    CHRISTIANITV. 

for  which  it  offered  no  adequate  motive.  It  aimed  at  re- 
pressing  the  passions  by  a  violence  so  unnatural  that  with 
them  it  also  crushed  some  of  the  gentlest  and  most  ele- 
vating emotions.  Its  self-satisfaction  and  exclusiveness  re- 
pelled the  gentlest  and  sweetest  natures  from  its  communion. 
It  made  a  vice  of  compassion,  which  Christianity  inculcated 
as  a  virtue  ;  it  cherished  a  haughtiness  which  Christianity 
discouraged  as  a  sin.  It  was  unfit  for  the  task  of  ameliorat- 
ing mankind,  because  it  looked  on  human  nature  in  its  nor- 
mal aspects  with  contemptuous  disgust.  Its  marked  char- 
acteristic was  a  despairing  sadness,  which  became  specially 
prominent  in  its  most  sincere  adherents.  Its  favourite  theme 
was  the  glorification  of  suicide,  wdiich  wiser  moralists  had 
severely  reprobated,^  but  which  many  Stoics  belauded  as  the 
one  sure  refuge  against  oppression  and  outrage.^  It  was  a 
philosophy  which  was  indeed  able  to  lacerate  the  heart  with 
a  righteous  indignation  against  the  crimes  and  follies  of 
mankind,  but  which  vainly  strove  to  resist,  and  which 
scarcely  even  hoped  to  stem,  the  ever-swelling  tide  of  vice 
and  misery.  For  wretchedness  it  had  no  pity ;  on  vice  it 
looked  with  impotent  disdain.  Thrasea  was  regarded  as  an 
antique  hero  for  walking  out  of  the  Senate-house  during 
the  discussion  of  some  decree  which  involved  a  servility 
more  than  usually  revolting.^  He  gradually  drove  his  few 
admirers  to  the  conviction  that,  even  for  those  who  had  every 
advantage  of  rank  and  wealth,  nothing  was  possible  but  a 
life  of  crushing  sorrow  ended  by  a  death  of  complete  de- 
spair/ St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter,  on  the  other  hand,  were  at 
the  very  same  epoch  teaching  in  the  same  city,  to  a  few 
Jewish  hucksters  and  a  few  Gentile  slaves,  a  doctrine  so  full 
of  hope  and  brightness  that  letters,  written  in  a  prison  with 
torture  and  death  in  view,  read  like  idylls  of  serene  happi- 


>  Virg.  yEn.  vi.  450,  sf^.  ;  Tusc.  Disf,.  i.  74  ;  Cic.  De  Senect.  73  ;  De  Rep.  vi.  15  ;  Sontn, 
Scip.  3 ;  Sen.  A"/.  70.     Comp.  F.pict.  Euchir.  52. 

'  Both  Zeno  and  Cleanthes  died  by  suicide.     For  the  frequency  of  suicide  under  the  Em- 
pire see   lac.  An?i.  vi.  10,  26,  xv.  60  ;  Hist.  v.  26  ;   Suet.  Tib.  49  ;   Sen.  Dc  Bene/,  ii.  27  ; 
Kp.  70;   Plin.  Ep.  i.  12,  iii.  7,  16,  vi.  24.     For  its  glorification,  Luc.an,  Phars.  iv. :  — 
"^fo^s  utinam  pavidos  vitae  subducere  nolles, 
Sed  virtus  te  sola  daret." 
"  Mortes  repentinae,  hoc  est  summa  vitae  felicitas,"  Plin.  H.  N.  vii.  53,  cf.  51.     The  practice 
of  suicide  became  in  the  days  of  Trajan  almost  a  "  natio.ial  usage"  (see  Merivale,  vii.  317, 
viii.  107).     The  variety  of  Latin  phrases  for  suicide  shows  the  frequency  of  the  crime.     On  the 
pride  of  .Stoicism  see  Tac.  Ahji.  xiv.  57  ;  Juv,  xiii.  93. 

3  On  the  motion  against  the  memory  of  .^grippiiia  (Tac.  A>,n.  .\Iv.  12).  He  had  also  op- 
posed the  execution  of  Antistius  {id.  xiv.  48).  It  was  further  remtMiibered  against  him  that 
he  had  not  attended  the  obsequie.s  of  the  deified  Poppaea,  or  offered  sacrifice  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  Nero's  "divine  voice. 

*  .Suet.  .\V/.  37. 


THE    RISK    OF    illF,    AN'riCIIRlSr.  II 

ness  ?ind  paeans  of  triumphant  joy.  The  graves  of  these 
poor  sufferers,  hid  from  the  public  eye  in  the  catacombs, 
were  decorated  with  an  art,  rude  indeed,  yet  so  triumphant 
as  to  make  their  subterranean  squalor  radiant  with  emblems 
of  all  that  is  brightest  and  most  poetic  in  the  happiness  of 
man/  While  the  glimmering  taper  of  the  Stoics  was  burn- 
ing pale,  as  though  amid  the  vapours  of  a  charnel-house, 
the  torch  of  Life  upheld  by  the  hands  of  the  Tarsian  tent- 
maker  and  the  Galilsean  fisherman  had  flashed  from  Damas- 
cus to  Antioch,  from  Antioch  to  Athens,  from  Athens  to 
Corinth,  from  Corintli  to  Ephesus,  from  Ephesus  to  Rome. 


CI-I  AFTER    11. 

THE    RISE    OF    THE    ANTICHRIST. 

"Hie  hostis  Deiim 
Hominumque  templis  expulit  superos  suis, 
Civesque  patria  ;  spiritum  fratri  abslulit 
Hausit  cruorcm  matris  ; — et  lucem  videt !  " 

— Sen.  Octav.  239 
"  Praestare  Neronem 
Securum  valet  haec  aetas." 

— Jav.  Sat.  viii.  173. 

All  the  vice,  all  the  splendour,  all  the  degradation  of  Pagan 
Rome  seemed  to  be  gathered  up  in  the  person  of  that  Em- 
peror who  first  placed  himself  in  a  relation  of  direct  antago- 
nism against  Christianity.  Long  before  death  ended  the 
astute  comedy  in  which  Augustus  had  so  gravely  borne  his 
part,^  he  had  experienced  the  Nemesis  of  Absolutism,  and 
foreseen  the  awful  possibilities  which  it  involved.  But 
neither  he,  nor  any  one  else,  could  have  divined  that  four 
such  rulers  as  Tiberius,  Gains,  Claudius,  and  Nero — the 
first  a  sanguinary  tyrant,  the  second  a  furious  madman,  the 
tliird  an  uxorious  imbecile,  the  fourth  a  heartless  buffoon — 
would  in  succession  affiict  and  horrify  the  world.  Yet  these 
rulers  sat  upon  the  breast  of  Rome  with  the  paralysing  spell 

^  "  There  the  ever-green  leaf  protests  in  sculptured  silence  that  the  winter  ofthe  grave  can- 
not touch  the  saintly  soul  ;  the  blossoming  branch  speaks  of  vernal  suns  heyontl  the  snows  of 
this  chill  world  ;  the  good  shepherd  shows  from  his  benign  looks  tiiat  the  mortal  way  so  teiTi- 
ble  to  nature  had  become  to  those  Christians  as  the  meadow-path  between  the  grassy  slope* 
and  beside  the  still  waters."      (iMartincau,  Hours  0/ Thought,  p.  155.) 

-  On  his  death-bed  he  asked  his  friends  "  whether  lie  had  fitly  gone  through  the  play  of 
life,"  and,  if  so,  begged  for  their  applause  like  aa  actor  on  the  point  of  leaving  the  stage  (Suot« 
Octal:  99). 


12  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  a  nightmare.  The  concentration  of  the  old  prerogatives 
of  many  offices  in  the  person  of  one  who  was  at  once  Con- 
sul, Censor,  Tribune,  Pontifex  Maximus,  and  perpetual  Im- 
perator,  fortified  their  power  with  the  semblance  of  legality, 
and  that  power  was  rendered  terrible  by  the  sword  of  the 
Praetorians,  and  the  deadly  whisper  of  the  informers.  No 
wonder  that  Christians  saw  the  true  type  of  the  Antichrist 
in  that  omnipotence  of  evil,  that  apotheosis  of  self,  that  dis- 
dain for  humanity,  that  hatred  against  all  mankind  besides, 
that  gigantic  aspiration  after  the  impossible,  that  frantic 
blasphemy  and  unlimited  indulgence,  which  marked  the 
despotism  of  a  Gains  or  a  Nero.  The  very  fact  that  their 
power  was  precarious  as  well  as  gigantic — that  the  lord  of 
the  world  might  at  any  moment  be  cut  off  by  the  indigna- 
tion of  \\\Q  canaille  of  Rome,  nay,  more,  by  the  revenge  of  a 
single  tribune,  or  the  dagger-thrust  of  a  single  slave' — did 
but  make  more  striking  the  resemblance  which  they  dis- 
played to  the  gilded  monster  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream. 
Their  autocracy,  like  that  visionary  idol,  was  an  image  of 
gold  on  feet  of  clay.  Of  that  colossus  many  a  Christian 
would  doubtless  be  reminded  when  he  saw  the  huge  statue 
of  Nero,  with  the  radiated  head  and  the  attributes  of  the 
sun-god,  which  once  towered  120  feet  high  on  the  shattered 
pediment  still  visible  beside  the  ruins  of  the  Flavian  Am- 
phitheatre.'* 

The  sketch  Avhich  I  am  now  presenting  to  the  reader  is 
the  necessary  introduction  to  the  annals  of  that  closing 
epoch  of  the  first  century,  which  witnessed  the  early  struggle 
of  Christianity  with  the  Pagan  power.  In  the  thirteen  years 
of  Nero's  reign  all  the  worst  elements  of  life  which  had  long 
mingled  with  the  sap  of  ancient  civilisation  seem  to  have 
rushed  at  once  into  their  scarlet  flower.  To  the  Christians 
of  that  epoch  the  dominance  of  such  an  Emperor  presented 
itself  in  the  aspect  of  wickedness  raised  to  superhiunan  ex- 
altation, and  engaged  in  an  impious  struggle  against  the 
Lord  and  against  His  saints. 

Till  the  days  of  Nero  the  Christians  had  never  been 
brought  into  collision  with  the  Imperial  Government  We 
may  set  aside  as  a  worthless  fiction  the  story  that  Tiberius 
had  been  so  much  interested  in  the  account  of  the  Cruci- 
fixion  forwarded  to  him  by  Pontius  Pilate,  as  to  consult  the 


'  Out  of  43  persons  in  Lipsiiis's  Strmmn  Cnesaruin^  32  died  \  jolent  deaths,  /./'.,  nearly 
75  per  cent. 

'•'  Sucl.  .W^-.  31  ;   Alart.  S/nct.  I\J>.  2. 


Tin:    RISE    OF   THE    AN'lICllRIS  T.  1 3 

Senate  on  the  advisability  of  admitting  Jesus  among  the 
gods  of  the  Pantheon. '  It  is  very  unhkely  that  Tiberius  ever 
heard  of  the  existence  of  the  Christians.  In  its  early  days 
the  Faith  was  too  humble  to  excite  any  notice  out  of  the 
limits  of  Palestine.  Gaius,  absorbed  in  his  mad  attempt  to 
set  up  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  ''a  desolating  abomination," 
in  the  form  of  a  huge  image  of  himself,  entertained  a  savage 
hatred  of  the  Jews,  but  had  not  learned  to  discriminate 
between  them  and  Christians.  Claudius,  disturbed  by  tu- 
mults in  the  Ghetto  of  Jewish  freedmen  across  the  Tiber, 
had  been  taught  to  look  with  alarm  and  suspicion  on  the 
name  of  Christus  distorted  into  "  Chrestus  ;  "  but  his  decree 
for  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Rome,  which  had  been  a 
dead  letter  from  the  first,  only  affected  Christianity  by 
causing  the  providential  migration  of  Prisca  and  Aquila,  to 
become  at  Corinth  and  Ephesus  the  hosts,  the  partners,  and 
the  protectors  of  St.  Paul.^  Nero  was  destined  to  enter 
into  far  deadlier  and  closer  relations  with  the  nascent  Faith, 
and  to  fill  so  vast  a  space  in  the  horrified  imaginations  of  the 
early  Christians  as  to  become  by  his  cruelties,  his  blasphe- 
mies, his  enormous  crimes,  the  nearest  approach  which  the 
world  has  yet  seen  to  the  ''Man  of  Sin."  He  was  the  ideal 
of  depravity  and  wickedness,  standing  over  against  the  ideal 
of  all  that  is  sinless  and  Divine.  Against  the  Christ  was 
now  to  be  ranged  the  Antichrist, — the  man-god  of  Pagan 
adulation,  in  whom  was  manifested  the  consummated  out- 
come of  Heathen  crime  and  Heathen  power. 

Up  to  the  tenth  year  of  Nero's  reign  the  Christians  had 
many  reasons  to  be  grateful  to  the  power  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  St.  Paul,  when  he  wrote  from  Corinth  to  the 
Thessalonians,  had  indeed  seen  in  the  fabric  of  Roman  polity, 
and  in  Claudius,  its  reigning  representative,  the  "check" 
and  the  "checker"  which  must  be  removed  before  the  com- 
ing of  the  Lord.^  Yet  during  his  stormy  life  the  Apostle 
had  been  shielded  by  the  laws  of  Rome  in  more  than  one 
provincial  tumult.  The  Roman  politarchs  of  Thessalonica 
had  treated  him  with  humanity.     He  had  been  protected 


»  Ps.  Clem.  Horn.  \.  6;  Tert.  Af>oL  5;  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  2 ;  Jer.  Chron.  Pasch.  i.  430. 
Braiin  (^De  Tiber  it  Christuin  in  Deoriim  7iu}neruin  re/erendi  consilio,  Bonn,  1834)  Vainly 
tr;ed  to  support  this  fable.  Tiberius,  more  than  any  Emperor,  was  "circa  Deos  et  religiones 
negligentior"  (Suet.  Tib.  69). 

2  See  Tert.  Aj>ol.  3  ;  ad  Natt.  i.  3  ;  my  Life  a?id  Work  rf  St.  Paul,  i.  559  I  cannot 
accept  the  view  of  Herzog  [Real-EttcykL,  s.v.  Claudius)  that  Chrestus  was  some  seditious 
Roman  Jew. 

3  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  i.  584,  fg. 


14  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY.      " 

from  the  infuriated  Jews  in  Corinth  by  the  disdainful  justice 
of  Gallio.  In  Jerusalem  the  prompt  interference  of  Lysias 
and  of  Festus  had  sheltered  him  from  the  plots  of  the  San- 
hedrin.  At  Csesarea  he  had  appealed  to  Caesar  as  his  best 
security  from  the  persistent  hatred  of  Ananias  and  the  Sad- 
ducees.  If  we  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  the  latter  part 
of  his  career,  his  appeal  had  not  been  in  vain,  and  he  owed 
the  last  two  years  of  his  missionary  activity  to  the  impar- 
tiality of  Roman  Law\  Hence,  apart  from  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  submission  to  recognized  authority,  he  had  special 
reason  to  urge  the  Roman  Christians  "to  be  subject  to  the 
higher  powers,"  and  to  recognise  in  them  the  ordinance  of 
God/  With  the  private  wickedness  of  rulers  the  Christians 
were  not  directly  concerned.  Rumours,  indeed,  they  must 
have  heard  of  the  poisoning  of  Claudius  and  of  Britannicus; 
of  Nero's  intrigues  with  Acte  ;  of  his  friendship  with  the  bad 
Otho  ;  of  the  divorce  and  legal  assassination  of  Octavia  ;  of 
the  murders  of  Agrippina  and  Poppaea,  of  Burrus  and 
Seneca.  Other  rumours  must  have  reached  them  of  name- 
less orgies,  of  wdiich  it  was  a  shame  even  to  speak.  But 
knowing  how  the  whole  air  of  the  bad  society  around  them 
reeked  with  lies,  they  may  have  shown  the  charity  that 
hopeth  all  things,  and  imputeth  no  evil,  and  rejoiceth  not 
in  iniquity,  by  tacitly  setting  aside  these  stories  as  incredi- 
ble or  false.  It  w^as  not  till  a.d.  64,  when  Nero  had  been 
nearly  ten  years  on  the  throne,  that  the  slow  light  of  His- 
tory fully  revealed  to  the  Church  of  Christ  what  this  more 
than  monster  was. 

A  dark  spirit  was  walking  in  the  house  of  the  Caesars 
— a  spirit  of  lust  and  blood  w^iich  destroyed  every  family  in 
succession  with  which  they  were  allied.  The  Octavii,  the 
Claudii,  the  Domitii,  the  Silani,  w^ere  all  hurled  into  ruin  or 
disgrace  in  their  attempt  to  scale,  by  intermarriage  with 
the  deified  race  of  Julius,  "  the  dread  summits  of  Caesarean 
power."  It  has  been  Avell  said  that  no  page  even  of  Tacitus 
has  so  sombre  and  tragic  an  eloquence  as  the  mere  Stem  ma 
Caesar um.  The  great  Julius,  robbed  by  death  of  his  two 
daughters,  w^as  succeeded  by  his  nephew  Augustus,"  who,  in 


'  Rom.  xiii.  1-7. 

'  It  is  characteristic  of  the  manners  of  the  v^%Q.  that  Julius  Cacsnr  had  manned  four  times, 
Augustus  thrice,  Tiberius  twice,  Gains  thrice,  Claudius  six  times,  and  Nero  ihrice.  Vet  Nero 
was  the  last  of  the  Cassars,  even  of  the  adoptive  line.  No  descendants  had  survived  of  the 
offspring  of  so  many  unions,  and,  as  Merivale  says,  "a  large  proportion,  which  it  would  be 
tedious  to  calculate,  were  the  victims  of  domestic  jealousy  and  politic  assassination"  {Nisi, 
vi.  366). 


THE    RISE    OF  THE   ANTfCHRIST.  ]5 

ordering  the  assassination  of  C^esarion,  the  natural  son  of 
Julius  by  Cleopatra,  extinguished  the  direct  line  of  the 
greatest  of  the  Caesars.  Augustus  by  his  three  marriages 
was  the  father  of  but  one  daughter,  and  that  daughter 
disgraced  his  family  and  embittered  his  life.  He  saw  his 
two  elder  grandsons  die  under  circumstances  of  the  deepest 
suspicion  ;  and  being  induced  to  disinherit  the  third  for  the 
asserted  stupidity  and  ferocity  of  his  disposition,  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Tiberius,  who  was  only  his  stepson,  and  had  not 
a  drop  of  the  Julian  blood  in  his  veins.  Tiberius  had  but  one 
son,  who  was  poisoned  by  his  favourite,  Sejanus,  before  his 
own  death.  This  son,  Drusus,  left  but  one  son,  who  was 
compelled  to  commit  suicide  by  his  cousin,  Gaius  ;  and  one 
daughter,  whose  son,  Rubellius  Plautus,  was  put  to  death 
by  order  of  Nero.  The  marriage  of  Germanicus,  the 
nephew  of  Tiberius,  with  the  elder  Agrippina,  grand- 
daughter of  Augustus,  seemed  to  open  new  hopes  to  the 
Roman  people  and  the  imperial  house.  Germanicus  was  a 
prince  of  courage,  virtue,  and  ability,  and  the  elder  Agrip- 
pina was  one  of  the  purest  and  noblest  women  of  her  day. 
Of  the  nine  children  of  this  virtuous  union  six  alone  sur- 
vived. On  the  parents,  and  the  three  sons  in  succession, 
the  hopes  of  Rome  were  jfixed.  But  Germanicus  was 
poisoned  by  order  of  Tiberius,  and  Agrippina  was  murdered 
in  banishment  after  the  endurance  of  the  most  terrible 
anguish.  Their  two  elder  sons,  Nero  and  Drusus,  lived 
only  long  enough  to  disgrace  themselves,  and  to  be  forced 
to  die  of  starvation.^  The  third  was  the  monster  Gaius. 
Of  the  three  daughters,  the  youngest,  Julia  Livia  was  put 
to  death  by  the  orders  of  Messalina,  the  wife  of  her  uncle 
Claudius.  Drusilla  died  -in  prosperous  infamy,  and  Agrip- 
pina the  younger,  after  a  life  of  crime  so  abnormal  and  so 
detestable  that  it  throws  into  the  shade  even  the  monstrous 
crimes  of  many  of  her  contemporaries,  murdered  her  hus- 
band, and  was  murdered  by  the  orders  of  the  son  for  whose 
sake  she  had  waded  through  seas  of  blood. 

That  son  was  Nero  !  Truly  the  Palace  of  the  Caesars 
must  have  been  haunted  by  many  a  restless  ghost,  and  amid 
its  vast  and  solitary  chambers  the  guilty  lords  of  its 
splendour  must  have  feared  lest  they  should  come  upon 
some  spectre  weeping  tears  of  blood.  In  yonder  corridor 
the  floor  was  still  stained  with  the  life-blood  of  the  mur- 


1  Tac.  Ann.w  3,  vi.  24. 


1 6  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

dered  Gaius  ;  '  in  that  subterranean  prison  the  miserable 
Drusus,  cursing  the  name  of  his  great-uncle  Tiberius,  tried 
to  assuage  the  pangs  of  hunger  by  chewing  the  stuffing  of 
his  mattress  f  in  that  gilded  saloon  Nero  had  his  private 
interviews  with  the  poison-mixer,  Locusta,  whom  he  salaried 
among  '^the  instruments  of  his  government;"'*  in  that 
splendid  hall  Britannicus  fell  into  convulsions  after  tasting 
his  brother's  poisoned  draught  ;  that  chamber,  bright  witii 
the  immoral  frescoes  of  Arellius,  witnessed  the  brutal  kick 
which  caused  the  death  of  the  beautiful  Poppsea.  Fit 
palace  for  the  Antichrist — fit  temple  for  the  wicked  human 
god  ! — a  temple  which  reeked  with  the  memory  of  infamies 
■ — a  palace  which  echoed  with  the  ghostly  footfall  of  mur- 
dered men  ! 

Agrippina  the  Second,  mother  of  Nero,  was  the  Lady 
Macbeth  of  that  scene  of  murder,  but  a  Lady  Macbeth 
with  a  life  of  worse  stains  and  a  heart  of  harder  steel. 
Born  at  Cologne  in  the  fourteeenth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Tiberius,  she  lost  her  father,  Germanicus,  by  poison  when 
she  was  three  years  old,  and  her  mother,  Agrippina,  first  by 
exile  when  she  was  twelve  years  old,  and  finally  by  murder 
when  she  was  seventeen.  She  grew  up  with  her  wicked 
sisters  and  her  wicked  brother  Gaius  in  the  house  of  her 
grandmother  iVntonia,  the  widow  of  the  elder  Drusus.  She 
was  little  more  than  fourteen  years  old  when  Tiberius 
married  her  to  Cnseus  Domitius  Ahenobarbus.  The  Domitii 
were  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  ancient  families  of  Rome, 
but  from  the  time  that  they  first  emerged  into  the  light  of 
history  they  had  been  badly  pre-eminent  for  the  ferocity  of 
their  dispositions.  They  derived  the  surname  of  Ahenobar- 
bus, or  brazen-beard,  from  a  legend  of  their  race  intended  to 
account  for  their  physical  peculiarity.*  Six  generations 
earlier,  the  orator  Crassus  had  said  of  the  Domitius  Aheno- 
barbus of  that  day,  ''  that  it  was  no  wonder  his  beard  was 
of  brass,  since  his  mouth  was  of  iron  and  his  heart  of  lead." 
But  though  the  traditions  of  cruelty  and  treachery  had  been 
carried  on  from  generation  to  generation,'^  they  seemed  to 

1  "The  Verres  of  a  single  province  sank  before  the  majesty  of  the  law,  and  the  righteous 
eloquence  of  his  accuser  ;  against  the  Verres  of  the  world  there  was  no  defence  except  in  the 
dagger  of  the  assassin"  (Freeman,  Essays,  ii.  330). 

2  Tac.  AtiK.  vii.  23.  3  Tac  Ann.  xii.  66,  xiii.  5.  4  Suet.  Ner.  r  ;  Plut.  Aumil.  25. 
^  "The  grandfather  of  Nero  had  been  checked  by  Augustus  from  the  bloodshed  of  his 

gladiatorial  shows  .  .  .  his  great-grandfather,  '  the  best  of  his  race,  had  changed  sides  three 
times,  not  without  disgrace,  m  the  civil  wars  .  .  .  his  great-great-grandfather  had  rendered 
himself  infamous  by  cruelty  and  treachery  at  Pharsalia,  and  was  also  charged  with  most  un- 
Roman  pusillanimity"  (see  Suet.  Ner.  1-5;  Merivale,  vi.  62,  seq.). 


THE   RISl-:   OF   THE   ANTICHRIST.  1/ 

have  culminated  in  the  father  of  Nero,  who  added  a  tinge  of 
meanness  and  vulgarity  to  the  brutal  manners  of  his  race. 
His  loose  morals  had  been  shocking  even  to  a  loose  age, 
and  men  told  each  other  in  disgust  how  he  had  cheated  in 
his  prsetorship  ;  how  he  had  killed  one  of  his  freedmen  only 
because  he  had  refused  to  drink  as  much  as  he  was  bidden; 
how  he  had  purposely  driven  over  a  poor  boy  on  the  Appian 
Road;  how^  in  a  squabble  in  the  Forum  he  had  struck  out  the 
eye  of  a  Roman  knight ;  how  he  had  been  finally  banished  for 
crimes  still  more  shameful.  It  was  a  current  anecdote  of 
this  man,  who  was  "  detestable  through  every  period  of  his 
life,"  that  when,  nine  years  after  his  marriage,  the  birth  of 
his  son  Nero  was  announced  to  him,  he  answered  the  con- 
gratulations of  his  friends  with  the  remark,  that  from  him- 
self and  Agrippina  nothing  could  have  been  born  but  what 
was  hateful,  and  for  the  public  ruin. 

Agrippina  was  twenty-one  when  her  brother  Gaius  suc- 
ceeded to  the  throne.  Towards  the  close  of  his  reign  she 
was  involved  in- the  conspiracy  of  Lepidus,  and  was  banished 
to  the  dreary  island  of  Pontia.  Gaius  seized  the  entire 
property  both  of  Domitius  and  of  Agrippina.  Nero,  their 
little  child,  then  three  years  old,  was  handed  over  as  a  pen- 
niless orphan  to  the  charge  of  his  aunt  Domitia,  the  mother 
of  Messalina.  This  lady  entrusted  the  education  of  the  child 
to  two  slaves,  whose  influence  is  perhaps  traceable  for  many 
subsequent  years.  One  of  them  was  a  barber,  the  other  a 
dancer. 

On  the  accession  of  Claudius,  Agrippina  was  restored  to 
her  rank  and  fortune,  and  once  more  undertook  the  manage- 
ment of  her  child.  He  was,  as  we  see  from  his  early  busts, 
a  child  of  exquisite  beauty.  His  beauty  made  him  an  ob- 
ject of  special  pride  to  his  mother.  From  this  time  forward 
it  seems  to  have  been  her  one  desire  to  elevate  the  boy  to 
the  rank  of  Emperor.  In  vain  did  the  astrologers  warn  her 
that  his  elevation  involved  her  murder.  To  such  dark  hints 
of  the  future  she  had  but  one  reply — Occidat  diun  imperet ! 
"  Let  him  slay  me,  so  he  do  but  reign  ! " 

By  her  second  marriage,  with  Crispus  Passienus,  ^  she 
further  increased  her  already  enormous  wealth.  She  bided 
her  time.  Claudius  w^as  under  the  control  of  his  freedmen, 
Narcissus  and  Pallas,  and  of  the  Empress  Messalina,  who 
had  borne  him  two  children,  Britannicus  and  Octavia.  The 
fierce  and  w^atchful  jealousy  of  Messalina  was  soon  success- 
ful  in  securing  the   banishment   and  subsequent   murder  of 


1 8  thb:  early  days  of  christiaxity. 

Julia,  the  younger  sister  of  Agrippina/  and  in  spite  of  the 
retirement  in  which  the  latter  strove  to  Avithdraw  herself 
from  the  furious  suspicion  of  the  Empress,  she  felt  that  her 
own  life  and  that  of  her  son  were  in  perpetual  danger.  A 
story  prevailed  that  when  Britannicus,  then  about  seven 
vears  old,  and  Nero,  who  was  little  more  than  three  years 
older,"'  had  ridden  side  by  side  in  the  Trojan  equestrian 
game,  the  favour  of  the  populace  towards  the  latter  had 
been  so  openly  manifested  that  Messalina  had  despatched 
emissaries  to  strangle  him  in  bed,  and  that  they  had  been 
frightened  from  doing  so  by  seeing  a  snake  glide  from  under 
the  pillow.^  Meanwhile,  Messalina  was  diverted  from  her 
purpose  by  the  criminal  pursuits  which  were  notorious  to 
every  Roman  w^ith  the  single  exception  of  her  husband. 
She  was  falling  deeper  and  deeper  into  that  dementation 
preceding  doom  whicli  at  last  enabled  her  enemy  Narcissus 
to  head  a  palace  conspiracy  and  to  strike  her  to  the  dust. 
Agrippina  owed  her  escape  from  a  fate  similar  to  that  of 
her  younger  sister  solely  to  the  infatuated"  passion  of  the 
rival  Avhose  name  through  all  succeeding  ages  has  been  a 
byword  of  guilt  and  shame. 

But  now  that  Claudius  was  a  widower,  the  fact  that  he 
was  her  uncle,  and  that  unions  between  an  uncle  and  niece 
were  regarded  as  incestuous,  did  not  prevent  Agrippina 
from  plunging  into  the  intrigues  by  which  she  hoped  to  se- 
cure the  Emperor  for  her  third  husband.  Aided  by  the 
freedman  Pallas,  brother  of  Felix,  the  Procurator  of  Judasn, 
and  by  the  blandishments  which  her  near  relationship  to 
Claudius  enabled  her  to  exercise,  she  succeeded  in  achieving 
the  second  great  object  of  her  ambition.  The  twice-wid- 
owed matron  became  the  sixth  wife  of  the  imbecile  Emperor 
within  three  months  of  the  execution  of  her  predecessor. 
She  had  now  but  one  further  design  to  accomplish,  and  that 
was  to  gain  the  purple  for  the  son  whom  she  loA^ed  with  all 
the  tigress  affection  of  her  evil  nature.  She  had  been  the 
sister  and  the  wife,  she  wished  also  to  be  the  mother  of  an 
Emperor. 

The  story  of  her  daring  schemes,  her  reckless  cruelty, 
her  incessant  intrigues,  is  recorded  in  the  stern  pages  of 
Tacitus.      During  the   five   years  of  her  married   life,*  it   is 


'  Suet,  Claud.  29. 

-  'racitus  says  two  years  ;  but  see  Merivale,  v.  517,  vi.  88. 

■'  Suetonius  thinks  that  the  story  rose  from  a  snake's  skin  which  his  mother  gave  him  as 
an  amulet,  and  which  for  some  time  he  wore  in  a  bracelet  (  AVr.  6). 

'  Slic  was  married  in  A.i).  40,  ami  poisoned  her  husband  in  October,  a.u.  54  . 


THE    RISE   OF   THE    ANTICHRIST.  1 9 

probable  that  no  day  passed  without  her  thoughts  brooding 
upon  the  guilty  end  which  she  had  kept  steadily  in  view 
during  so  many  vicissitudes.  Her  first  plan  was  to  secure 
for  Nero  the  hand  of  Octavia,  the  only  daughter  of  Claudius. 
Octavia  had  long  been  betrothed  to  the  young  and  noble 
Lucius  Junius  Silanus,  a  great-great-grandson  of  Augustus, 
who  might  well  be  dreaded  as  a  strong  protector  of  the 
rights  of  his  young  brother-in-law,  Britannicus.  As  a  fa- 
vourite of  the  Emperor,  and  the  betrothed  of  the  Emperor's 
daughter,  Silanus  had  already  received  splendid  honours  at 
the  hands  of  the  Senate,  but  at  one  blow  Agrippina  hurled 
him  into  the  depths  of  shame  and  misery.  The  infamous 
Vitellius — Vitellius  who  had  once  begged  as  a  favour  a 
slipper  of  Messalina,  and  carried  it  in  his  bosom  and  kissed 
it  with  profound  reverence — Vitellius  who  had  placed  a 
gilded  image  of  the  freedman  Pallas  among  his  household 
gods — trumped  up  a  false  charge  against  Silanus,  and,  as 
Censor,  struck  his  name  off  the  list  of  the  Senate.  His 
betrothal  annulled,  his  przetorship  abrogated,  the  high-spir- 
ited young  man,  recognising  whose  hand  it  was  that  had 
aimed  this  poisoned  arrow  at  his  happiness,  waited  till 
Agrippina's  w^edding-day,  and  on  that  day  committed  suicide 
on  the  altar  of  his  own  Penates.  The  next  step  of  the  Em- 
press was  to  have  her  rival  Lollia  Paulina  charged  with 
magic,  to  secure  her  banishment,  to  send  a  tribune  to  kill 
her,  and  to  identify,  by  personal  inspection,  her  decapitated 
head.  Then  Calpurnia  w^as  driven  from  Rome  because 
Claudius,  with  perfect  innocence,  had  praised  her  beauty. 
On  the  other  hand,  Seneca  w^as  recalled  from  his  Corsican 
exile,  in  order  to  increase  Agrippina's  popularity  by  an  act 
of  ostensible  mercy,  which  restored  to  Rome  its  favourite 
w^riter,  while  it  secured  a  powerful  adherent  for  her  cause 
and  an  eminent  tutor  for  her  son.  The  next  step  was  t  > 
effect  the  betrothal  of  Octavia  to  Nero,  who  was  twehe 
years  old.  A  still  more  difficult  and  important  measure  was 
to  secure  his  adoption.  Claudius  was  attached  to  his  son 
Britannicus,  and,  in  spite  of  his  extraordinary  fatuity,  he 
could  hardly  fail  to  see  that  his  son's  rights  would  be  injured 
by  the  adoption  of  an  elder  boy  of  most  noble  birth,  who 
reckoned  amongst  his  supporters  all  those  who  might  have 
natural  cause  to  dread  the  vengeance  of  a  son  of  Messalina. 
Claudius  was  an  antiquary,  and  he  knew  that  for  800  years, 
from  the  days  of-Attus  Clausus  downwards,  there  had  never 
been  an  adoption  among  the  patrician  Claudii.      In  vain  did 


20  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Agrippina  and  her  adherents  endeavour  to  poison  his  mind 
by  whispered  insinuations  about  the  parentage  of  Britanni- 
cus.  But  he  was  at  last  overborne,  rather  than  convinced, 
by  the  persistence  with  which  Agrippina  had  taken  care 
that  the  adoption  should  be  pressed  upon  him  in  the  Senate, 
by  the  multitude,  and  even  in  the  privacy  of  his  own  gar- 
den. Pallas,  too,  helped  to  decide  his  wavering  determina- 
tion by  quoting  the  precedents  of  the  adoption  of  Tiberius 
by  Augustus,  and  of  Gains  by  Tiberius.  Had  he  but  well 
weighed  the  fatal  significance  of  those  precedents,  he  would 
have  hesitated  still  longer  ere  he  sacrificed  to  an  intriguing 
alien  the  birthright,  the  happiness,  and  ultimately  the  lives 
of  the  young  son  and  daughter  whom  he  so  dearly  loved. 

And  now  Agrippina's  prosperous  wickedness  was  bear- 
ing her  along  full  sail  to  the  fatal  haven  of  her  ambition. 
She  obtained  tlie  title  of  Augusta,  which  even  the  stately  wife 
of  Augustus  had  never  borne  during  her  husband's  lifetime. 
Seated  on  a  lofty  throne  by  her  husband's  side,  she  received 
foreign  embassies  and  senatorial  deputations.  She  gained 
permission  to  antedate  the  majority  of  her  son,  and  secured 
for  him  a  promise  of  the  Consulship,  admission  to  various 
priesthoods,  a  proconsular  iinperhim^  and  the  title  of  ''Prince 
of  the  Youth."  She  made  these  honours  the  pretext  for  ob- 
taining a  largess  to  the  soldiery,  and  Circensian  games  for 
the  populace,  and  at  these  games  Nero  appeared  in  the 
manly  toga  and  triumphal  insignia,  while  Britannicus,  ut- 
terly eclipsed,  stood  humbly  by  his  side  in  the  boyish //vz.'- 
ti'xta — the  embroidered  robe  which  marked  his  youth.  And 
while  step  after  step  was  taken  to  bring  Nero  into  splendid 
prominence,  Britannicus  was  kept  in  such  deep  seclusion, 
and  watched  with  such  jealous  eyes,  that  the  people  hardly 
knew  whether  he  was  alive  or  dead.  In  vain  did  Agrippina 
lavish  upon  the  unhappy  lad  her  false  caresses.  Being  a 
boy  of  exceptional  intelligence,  he  saw  through  her  hypoc- 
risy, and  did  not  try  to  conceal  the  contemptuous  disgust 
which  her  arts  inspired.  Meanwhile  he  was  a  prisoner  in 
all  but  name  :  every  expedient  was  invented  to  keep  him  at 
the  greatest  distance  from  his  fatlier  ;  every  friend  who  loved 
him,  every  freedman  avIio  was  faithful  to  him,  every  soldier 
wlio  seemed  likely  to  embrace  his  cause,  was  either  secretly 
undermined,  or  removed  under  pretext  of  honourable  pro- 
motion. Tutored  as  he  was  by  adversity  to  conceal  his 
feelings,  he  one  day  through  accident  or  boyish  passion  re- 
turned  the  salutation  of  his  adoptive  brother  by  the  name 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   ANTICHRIST.  21 

of  Ahenobarbus,  instead  of  calling  him  by  the  name  Nero, 
which  was  the  mark  of  his  new  rank  as  the  adopted  son  of 
Claudius.  Thereupon  the  rage  of  Agrippina  and  Nero 
knew  no  bounds  ;  and  such  insolence— for  in  this  light  the 
momentary  act  of  carelessness  or  venial  outburst  of  temper 
was  represented  to  Claudius — made  the  boy  a  still  more  de- 
fenceless victim  to  the  machinations  of  his  stepmother. 
Month  after  month  she  wove  around  him  the  web  of  her 
intrigues.  The  Prsetorians  were  won  over  by  flattery,  gifts, 
and  promises.  The  double  praefecture  of  Lucius  Geta  and 
Rufius  Crispinus  was  superseded  by  the  appointment  of 
Afranius  Burrus,  an  honest  soldier,  but  a  partisan  of  the 
Empress,  to  whom  he  thus  owed  his  promotion  to  the  most 
coveted  position  in  the  Roman  army.  From  the  all-power- 
ful freedmen  of  Claudius,  Agrippina  had  little  to  fear.  Cal- 
listus  was  dead,  and  she  played  off  against  each  other  the 
rival  influences  of  Pallas  and  Narcissus.  Pallas  was  her 
devoted  adherent  and  paramour ;  Narcissus  was  afraid  to 
move  in  opposition  to  her,  because  the  accession  of  Britan- 
nicus  would  have  been  liis  own  certain  death-warrant,  since 
he  had  been  the  chief  agent  in  the  overthrow  of  Messalina. 

As  for  the  phenomena  on  which  the  populace  looked 
with  terror — the  fact  that  the  skies  had  seemed  to  blaze  with 
fire  on  the  day  of  Nero's  adoption,  and  violent  shocks  of 
earthquake  had  shaken  Rome  on  the  day  that  he  assumed  the 
manly  toga — Agrippina  cared  nothing  for  them.  She  would 
recognise  no  omen  which  did  not  promise  success  to  her 
determination.  Nothing  could  now  divert  her  from  her 
purpose.  When  Domitia,the  aunt  under  whose  roof  theyoimg 
Nero  had  been  trained,  began  to  win  his  smiles  by  the  contrast 
between  her  flatteries  and  presents  and  the  domineering 
threats  of  his  mother,  Agrippina  at  once  brought  against 
her  a  charge  of  magic,  and,  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of 
Narcissus,  Domitia  was  condemned  to  death.  The  Empress 
hesitated  at  no  crime  ^\^lich  helped  to  pave  the  way  of  her 
son  to  power,  but  at  the  same  time  her  ambition  was  so  far 
selfish  that  she  intended  to  keep  that  son  under  her  own  ex- 
clusive influence. 

Many  warnings  now  showed  her  that  the  time  was  ripe 
for  her  supreme  endeavour.  Her  quarrel  with  Narcissus 
had  broken  out  into  threats  and  recriminations  in  the  very 
presence  of  the  Emperor.  The  Senate  showed  signs  of  in- 
dignant recalcitrance  against  her  attacks  on  those  whose 
power  she  feared,  or  whose  wealth  she  envied.     Her  designs 


22  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

were  now  so  transparent,  that  Narcissus  began  openly  to 
show  his  compassion  for  the  hapless  and  ahnost  deserted 
Britanniciis.  But,  worst  of  all,  it  was  clear  that  Claudius 
himself  was  becoming  conscious  of  his  perilous  mistake,  and 
was  growing  weary  both  of  her  and  of  her  son.  He  had 
changed  his  former  wife  for  a  worse.  If  Messalina  had  been 
unfaithful  to  him,  so  he  began  to  suspect  was  Agrippina, 
and  he  could  not  but  feel  that  she  had  changed  her  old 
fawning  caresses  for  a  threatening  insolence.  He  was  sick 
of  her  ambition,  of  her  intrigues,  of  the  hatred  she  always 
displayed  to  his  oldest  and  most  faithful  servants,  of  her 
pushing  eagerness  for  her  Nen^,  of  her  treacherous  cruelty 
towards  Jiis  own  children.  He  was  heard  to  drop  ominous 
expressions.  He  began  to  display  towards  Britannicus  a 
yearning  aifection,  full  of  the  passionate  hope  that  when  he 
was  a  little  older  his  wrongs  would  be  avenged.  All  this 
Agrippina  learnt  from  her  spies.  Not  a  day  was  to  be  lost. 
Narcissus,  whose  presence  was  the  chief  security"  for  his 
master's  life,  had  gone  to  the  baths  of  Sinuessa  to  find  relief 
from  a  fit  of  the  gout.  There  lay  at  this  time  in  prison,  on 
a  charge  of  poisoning,  a  woman  named  Locusta,  whose 
career  recalls  the  Mrs.  Turner  of  the  reign  of  James  I.,  and 
the  Marchioness  de  Brinvilliers  of  the  court  of  Louis  XIV. 
To  this  woman  Agrippina  repaired  with  the  promise  of  free- 
dom and  reward,  if  she  would  provide  a  poison  which  would 
disturb  the  brain  without  too  rapidly  destroying  life.  Ha- 
lotus,  the  Emperor's  praegustator,  or  taster,  and  Xenophon, 
his  physician,  had  been  already  won  over  to  share  in  the 
deed.  The  poison  was  infused  into  a  fine  and  delicious 
mushroom  of  a  kind  of  which  Claudius  was  known  to  be 
particularly  fond,  and  Agrippina  gave  this  mushroom  to  her 
husband  with  her  own  hand.  After  tasting  it  he  became 
very  quiet,  and  then  called  for  v^ine.  He  was  carried  off 
to  bed  senseless,  but  the  quantity  of  wine  which  he  had 
drunk  weakened  the  effects  of  the  poison,  and  at  a  sign 
from  Agrippina  the  faithless  physician  finished  the  murder 
by  tickling  the  throat  of  the  sufferer  with  a  poisoned 
feather.  Before  the  morning  of  Oct.  13,  a.d.  54,  Claudius 
was  dead. 

His  death  was  concealed  from  the  public  and  from  his 
children,  whom  Agrippina  with  hypocritical  caresses  and 
false  tears  kept  by  her  side  in  her  own  chamber,  until  every- 
thing was  ready  for  the  proclamation  of  Nero.  At  noon, 
which  the  Chaldaeans  had  declared  would  be  the  only  lucky 


THE   FEATURES   OF   THE   ANTICIH^IST.  23 

hour  of  an  unlucky  day,  the  gates  of  the  palace  were  thrown 
open,  and  Nero  walked  forth  with  Afranius  Burrus  by  his  side. 
The  Praetorian  Pracfect  informed  the  guard  that  Claudius 
had  appointed  Nero  his  successor.  A  few  faithful  voices 
asked,  "  Where  is  Britannicus  ?"  But  as  no  one  answered, 
and  the  young  prince  was  not  forthcoming,  they  accept- 
ed what  seemed  to  be  an  accomplished  fact.  Nero  went 
to  the  Praetorian  camp,  promised  a  donation  of  15,000 
sesterces  (more  than  ^130)  to  each  soldier,  and  was  pro- 
claimed Emperor.  The  Senate  accepted  the  initiative  of 
the  Praetorians,  and  by  sunset  Nero  was  securely  seated  on 
the  throne  of  the  Roman  world.  The  dream  of  Agrippina's 
life  was  accomplished.  She  was  now  the  mother,  as  she 
had  been  the  sister  and  the  wife  of  an  Emperor  ;  and  that 
young  Emperor,  when  the  tribune  came  to  ask  him  the 
watchv/ord  for  the  night,  answered  in  the  words — Optiinae 
Matri!     "  To  the  Best  of  Mothers  !  " 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    FEATURES    OF    THE    ANTICHRIST. 

*E(rxaTO?  AiveaBu)v  /atjTpoKToro?  riyefiov€v<Tet..—Orac.  Sib.  a^,  Xiphilin.  Ix.,  p.  709. 
'•Nero     .     .     .     ut  crat    exsecrabilis    ac     nocens    tyrannus,    prosilivit   ad    excideiidum 
coeleste  tempium  delendamquejustitiam." — Lactam.  De  Mort.  Persec.  2. 
"  (JuidNerone  pejus?"  — Mart.  Epig.  vii.  34. 

From  the  very  moment  of  her  success,  the  awful  Nemesis 
began  to  fall  upon  Agrippina,  as  it  falls  on  all  sinners — 
that  worst  Nemesis,  which  breaks  crowned  with  fire  out  of 
the  achievement  of  guilty  purposes.  Of  Agrippina  on  the 
night  of  Claudius's  murder  it  might  doubtless  have  been 
said,  as  has  been  said  of  another  queen  on  the  tragic  night 
on  which  her  husband  perished  in  the  explosion  at  Kirk  o' 
Fields,  that  she  ''retired  to  rest— to  sleep,  doubtless— sleep 
with  the  soft  tranquillity  of  an  innocent  child.  Remorse 
may  disturb  the  slumbers  of  the  man  who  is  dabbling  with 
his'  first  experiences  of  wrong.  When  the  pleasure  has 
been  tasted  and  is  gone,  and  nothing  is  left  of  the  crime 
but  the  ruin  it  has  wrought,  then,  too,  the  Furies  take  their 
seats  upon  the  midnight  pillow.  But  the  meridian  of  evil 
is  for  the  most  part  left  unvexed  ;  and  wlien  human  creat- 


24  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ures  have  chosen  their  road,  they  are  left  alone  to  follow 
it  to  the  end."  * 

From  the  day  that  she  had  won  her  own  heart's  desires, 
Agrippina  found  that  her  hopes  had  vanished,  and  that  her 
life  was  to  be  plunged  in  retributive  calamities.  She 
found  that  crime  ever  needs  the  support  of  further  crime  ; 
that  the  evil  spirits  who  serve  the  government  of  an  aban- 
doned heart  demand  incessant  sacrifices  at  their  altar. 
She  had  brought  about  the  ruin  of  the  young  Lucius 
Junius  Silanus.  His  elder  brother,  Marcus,  was  a  man  of 
such  a  gentle  and  unassuming  character  that  Gains  had 
nicknamed  him  ''the  Golden  Sheep  ;"  and  though  the 
blood  of  the  imperial  family  flowed  in  his  veins,  he  excited 
so  little  jealousy  that  he  had  been  raised  to  the  consulship, 
and  even  sent  to  Asia  with  proconsular  command.  Yet 
Agrippina  dreaded  that  he  might  avenge  the  death  of  his 
brother,  and,  without  the  knowledge  of  Nero,  sent  the 
freedman  Helius,  with  P.  Celer,  a  Roman  knight,  who 
poisoned  Silanus  at  a  banquet,  so  openly  that  the  whole 
world  w^as  aware  of  what  had  been  done. 

The  aged  Narcissus  was  her  next  victim  ;  and  more 
murders  would  have  follow^ed  had  not  Burrus  and  Seneca 
taken  measures  to  prevent  them.  Their  influence  was 
happily  sufficient,  since  they  w^ere  still  regarded  as  tutors 
of  the  young  Caesar,  who  was  only  seventeen  years  old. 
They  also  endeavoured  to  veil,  and  as  far  as  possible  to 
cloak,  the  audacious  intrusions  into  state  affairs,  which 
show^ed  that  Agrippina  was  not  content  with  the  exceptional 
honours  showered  upon  her.  Of  those  honours,  strange  to 
say,  one  of  the  chief  ^vas  her  appointment  to  be  a  priestess 
of  the  now  deified  Emperor  whom  she  had  so  recently 
poisoned  !  It  is  clear  that,  though  she  had  again  and  again 
proved  herself  to  be  the  most  ungrateful  of  women,  she 
expected  from  her  son  a  boundless  gratitude.  Indeed,  she 
so  galled  the  vanity  and  terrified  the  cowardice  of  his  small 
and  mean  nature  by  her  constant  threats  and  upbraidings, 
that  he  feared  her  far  more  than  he  had  ever  loved.  The 
consequence  was  that  she  had  at  once  to  struggle  for  her 
ascendency.  It  was  threatened  on  the  one  hand  by  the 
influence  of  Burrus  and  Seneca,  and  on  the  other  by  the 
blandishments  of  bad  companions  and  fawning  slaves. 
Bent  on  pleasure,  fond  of  petty  accomplishments,  flattered 


Kroude,  Hist.  vii.  511. 


THE   FEATURES   OF  THE   ANTICHRIST.  25 

into  the  notion  that  he  was  a  man  of  consummate  artistic 
taste,  Nero  occupied  himself  with  dilettante  efforts  in 
sculpture,  painting,  singing,  verse-making,  and  chariot- 
driving,  and  was  quite  content  to  leave  to  his  tutors  the 
graver  affairs  of  state.  His  tiger  nature  had  not  yet 
tasted  blood.  Seneca,  in  his  treatise  on  clemency,  written 
at  the  close  of  Nero's  first  year,  had  informed  the  delighted 
world  that  the  gentle  youth,  on  being  required  to  sign  the 
order  for  a  criminal's  execution,  had  expressed  the  fervent 
wish  that  he  had  never  learnt  to  write.  Seneca  also  com- 
posed for  him  the  admired  speeches  which  he  was  now  and 
then  called  upon  to  deliver.  The  government  of  the  world 
was  practically  in  the  hands  of  an  upright  soldier  and  an 
able  philosopher ;  and  however  glaring  were  the  inconsis- 
tencies of  the  latter,  he  had  yet  attained  to  a  moral  standard 
incomparably  superior  to  that  professed  by  the  majority  of 
his  contemporaries.  If  the  political  machine  worked  with 
perfect  smoothness,  if  Rome  for  five  years  was  shocked 
by  no  public  atrocities,  if  informers  to  some  extent  found 
their  occupation  gone,  if  no  noble  blood  was  wantonly 
shed,  if  the  Senate  was  respected  and  the  soldiers  were 
orderly,  the  glory  of  that  ''golden  quinquennium" — which, 
in  the  opinion  of  Trajan,  eclipsed  the  merits  of  even  the 
worthiest  princes — was  due,  not  to  the  small-minded  and 
would-be  cesthetic  youth  who  figured  as  Emperor,  but  to 
the  tutors  who  kept  in  check  the  wild  passions  of  his 
mother,  and  directed  the  acts  which  ostensibly  proceeded 
from  himself. 

But  in  order  to  keep  him  amused,  they  thought  it  either 
inexpedient  or  impossible  to  maintain  too  strict  a  discipline 
over  his  moral  character.  Nero  was  nominally  married  to 
the  daughter  of  Claudius,  but  from  the  first,  they  were 
separated  from  each  other,  by  a  mutual  and  instinctive  re- 
pulsion. When  he  entered  into  an  intrigue  with  Acte,  a 
beautiful  Greek  freedwoman,  his  tutors  held  it  desirable  to 
connive  at  vices  which  the  spirit  of  the  age  scarcely  pre- 
tended to  condemn.  Agrippina,  however,  treated  him  as 
though  he  were  still  a  child,  and,  when  she  observed  his  re- 
sentment, forfeited  all  his  confidence  by  passing  from  the 
extreme  of  furious  reproach  to  the  extreme  of  fulsome  com- 
plaisance. Hence,  alike  in  affairs  of  state  and  in  his  domes- 
tic pleasures  he  was  alienated  from  his  mother,  and  in  his 
daily  life  he  fell  unreservedly  under  the  influence  of  cor- 
rupt associates  like  Marcus  Otho  and  Claudius  Senecio,  two 


26  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

bad  specimens  of  the  jeiinesse  doree  of  their  day,  the  dandies 
of  an  age  when  dandyism  was  a  far  viler  thing  than  it  is  in 
modern  times.'  At  last  the  quarrel  between  Nero  and  Agrip- 
pina  became  so  fierce  that  she  did  not  hesitate  to  reveal  to 
him  all  the  crimes  she  had  committed  for  his  sake,  and  if 
she  could  not  retain  her  sway  over  his  mind  by  gratitude, 
she  terrified  him  with  threats  that  she  who  had  raised  him 
to  the  throne  could  hurl  him  from  it.  Britannicus  w^as  the 
true  heir;  Nero,  but  for  her,  w^ould  have  remained  a  mere 
Ahenobarbus.  She  was  the  daughter  of  Germanicus;  she 
would  go  in  person  to  the  Praetorian  camp,  with  Britanni- 
cus by  her  side,  and  then  let  the  maimed  Burrus  and  the 
pedagogic  Seneca  see  whether  they  could  prevent  her  from 
restoring  to  the  throne  of  his  fathers  the  injured  boy  wiio 
had  been  ousted  by  her  intrigues  on  behalf  of  an  adopted 
alien.  *'  I  made  you  Emperor,  I  can  unmake  you.  Bri- 
tannicus is  the  true  Emperor,  not  you."  She  dinned  such 
taunts  and  threats  into  the  ears  of  a  son  wiio  w^as  already 
vitiated  in  character,  who  already  began  to  feel  his  power, 
until  he  too  was  driven  to  protect,  by  the  murder  of  a 
brother,  the  despotism  which  his  mother  had  w^on  for  him 
by  the  murder  of  a  husband.  Thus  in  every  w'ay  she  be- 
came the  evil  angel  of  his  destiny.  She  drove  him  into  the 
crimes  of  which  she  had  already  set  the  fatal  example.  It 
was  her  fault  if  he  rapidly  lost  sight  of  the  lesson  wiiich 
Seneca  had  so  assiduously  inculcated,  that  the  one  impreg- 
nable bulwark  of  a  monarch  is  the  affection  of  his  people." 

Nero  began  to  look  on  the  young  Britannicus  as  King 
John  looked  on  the  young  Arthur.  Even  civilised,  even 
Christian  ages  have  shown  how  perilous  is  the  position  of  a 
hated  heir  to  a  usurped  throne.  The  threats  of  Agrippina 
had  deepened  dislike  into  detestation,  and  uneasiness  into 
terror.  Britannicus  w^as  a  fine,  strong,  w^ell-growm  boy,  who 
showed  signs  of  a  vigorous  character  and  a  keen  intellect. 
A  little  incident  which  occurred  in  December,  a.d.  54,  had 
alarmed  Nero  still  further.  The  wSaturnalia  were  being 
celebrated  with  their  usual  effusive  joy,  and  at  one  of  the 
feasts  Nero — who  had  become  bv  lot  the  Rex  bibcndi^  or 
Master  of  the  Revel — had  issued  his  mimic  commands  to 
the  other  guests  in  a  spirit  of  harmless  fun  ;  but  in  order  to 
put  the  shyness  of  Britannicus  to  the  blush,  he  had  ordered 
the  lad   to  ^o  out  into   the  middle  of  the  room  and  sing  a 

'  Niebuhr, 

2  "  Unum  est  inexpugnabilc  muninientuni  amor  civiuin  "  (Sen.  De  Cle)ne?it.  i.  19.  5). 


THE    FEATURES    OF   THE    ANTICHRIST.  2/ 

song.  Without  the  least  trepidation  or  awkwardness  Bri- 
tannicus  had  stepped  out,  and  sung  a  magnificent  fragment 
of  a  tragic  chorus,  in  which  lie  had  indicated  liow  he  was  ex- 
pelled from  all  his  rights  by  violence  and  crime.  The  scene 
would  have  been  an  awkward  one  under  any  circumstances; 
it  was  rendered  still  more  so  by  the  fact  that  in  the  darken- 
ing hall  a  deep  murmur  had  expressed  the  admiration  and 
sympathy  of  the  guests.  Yet  no  steps  could  be  taken 
against  a  young  prince  whom  it  was  impossible  to  put  to 
death  openly,  and  against  whom  there  was  no  pretence  for 
a  criminal  accusation. 

But  the  first  century,  like  the  fifteenth,  was  an  age  of 
poisoners.  Locusta  was  still  in  prison,  and  Nero  employed 
the  Praetorian  tribune  Julius  Pollio  to  procure  from  her  a 
poison  which  might  effect  a  slow  death.  There  was  no  need 
to  win  over  the  pi-acgustator,  or  the  personal  attendants  of 
the  young  prince.  Care  had  long  been  taken  that  the  poor 
boy  should  only  be  surrounded  l3y  the  creatures  of  his  ene- 
mies. The  poison  w^as  administered,  but  it  failed.  Nero 
grew  wild  with  alarm.  Stories,  which  probably  gained  their 
darkest  touches  from  the  horror  of  his  subsequent  career, 
told  how  he  had  threatened  the  tribune  and  struck  Locusta 
for  her  cowardice  in  not  doing  her  work  well,  "as  though 
//6',  forsooth,  need  have  any  fear  about  the  Julian  law." 
Deadlier  poison  was  then  concocted  outside  his  own  bed- 
chamber, and  tried  upon  animals,  until  its  effects  were 
found  to  be  sufficiently  rapid.  Setting  aside  these  stories 
as  crude  exaggerations,  all  authorities  are  agreed  as  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  death  of  Britannicus.  It  was  a  custom 
established  by  Augustus  that  the  young  princes  of  the  im- 
perial house  should  sit  at  dinner  with  nobles  of  their  own 
age  at  a  lower  and  less  luxuriously  served  table  than  that  at 
which  the  Emperor  dined.  While  Britannicus  was  thus 
dining,  a  draught  was  handed  to  him  which  had  been  tasted 
by  \\\s  praegustatoi'y  but  w\as  too  hot  to  drink.  He  asked  for 
water  to  cool  it,  and  in  that  cold  water  the  poison  was  ad- 
ministered. He  drank,  and  instantly  sunk  down  from  his 
seat  silent  and  breathless.  The  guests,  among  whom  was 
the  young  Titus,  the  future  Emperor  of  Rome,  started  from 
tlie  table  in  consternation.  The  countenance  of  Agrippina, 
working  with  astonishment,  anguish,  and  terror,  showed 
that  she  at  least  had  not  been  admitted  into  the  terrible 
secret.  Octavia  looked  on  with  the  self-possession  which 
in  such  a  palace  had  taught  her  on  all  occasions  to  hide  her 


28  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

emotions  under  a  simulated  apathy.  The  banqueters  were 
disturbed  until  Nero,  with  perfect  coolness,  bade  them  re- 
sume their  mirth  and  conversation.  **  Britannicus,"  he  said, 
"  will  soon  be  well.  He  has  only  been  seized  with  one  of 
the  epileptic  fits  to  which  he  is  liable."  It  was  no  epileptic 
fit — the  last  of  the  Claudii  was  dead.  That  night,  amid 
storms  which  seemed  to  mark  the  wrath  of  Heaven,  the 
corpse  was  carried  with  hurried  privacy  to  a  mean  funeral 
pyre  on  the  Field  of  Mars.  We  may  disbelieve  the  ghastly 
story  that  the  rain  waslied  off  the  chalk  which  had  been 
used  to  disguise  the  livid  indications  of  poison;  but  it  seems 
certain  that  the  last  rites  were  paid  with  h'aste  and  meanness 
little  suited  to  the  last  male  descendant  of  a  family  which 
had  been  famous  for  so  many  centuries — to  the  sole  inheri- 
tor of  the  glorious  traditions  of  so  many  of  the  noblest  lines. 
The  Romans  acquiesced  too  easily  in  this  terrible  crime, 
because  it  fell  in  with  the  Machiavellian  policy  which  would 
gladly  rid  itself  of  a  source  of  future  disturbances.  But 
they  were  punished  for  their  facile  tolerance  by  the  change 
which  ev^ery  year  developed  in  the  character  of  their  Em- 
peror. Agrippina  felt  that  even-handed  justice  was  indeed 
beginning  to  commend  the  ingredients  of  the  poisoned  chal- 
ice to  her  own  lips.  Her  enemies  began  to  see  that  their 
opportunity  was  come.  Her  prosperity  was  instantly  swal- 
lowed up  in  the  ''chaos  of  hatreds"  which  she  had  aroused 
by  her  unscrupulous  ambition.  The  coward  conscience  of 
the  Emperor  was  worked  upon  by  a  plot,  contrived  by  Si- 
lana  and  Domitia  Lepida,  which  charged  Agrippina  with 
the  intention  of  raising  Rubellius  Plautus  to  the  throne. 
This  plot  she  overbore  by  the  force  of  her  own  passionate 
indignation.  Scornfully  ignoring  the  false  evidence  trumped 
up  against  her,  she  claimed  an  interview  with  her  son,  and  in- 
stead of  entering  on  her  own  defence,  clemanded  and  secured 
the  death  or  exile  of  her  enemies.  But  slie  had  by  this  time 
been  deprived  of  her  body-guard,  of  her  sentinels,  of  all 
public  honours,  even  of  her  home  in  the  palace.  Her  son 
rarely  visited  her,  and  then  only  among  a  number  of  cen- 
turions, and  he  always  left  her  after  a  brief  and  chilling 
salutation.  She  was  living  deserted  by  her  friends,  and  ex- 
posed to  deliberate  insults,  in  alarmed  isolation  amid  tlie 
hatred  of  the  populace.  Worse  dangers  thickened  around 
her.  Nero  became  deeply  enamoured  of  Poppaea  Sabina, 
the  wife  of  his  friend  Otho,  and  one  of  the  most  cruel  and 
cold-blooded   intriguers   amid    the    abandoned    society    of 


THE    FEATURES    OF   THE   ANTICHRIST.  29 

Roman  matrons.  Nero  was  deeply  smitten  with  her  infan- 
tile features,  the  soft  complexion,  which  she  preserved  by- 
daily  bathing  in  warm  asses'-milk,  her  assumed  modesty, 
her  genial  conversation  and  sprightly  wit.  He  was  specially 
enchanted  with  the  soft,  abundant  hair,  the  envy  of  Roman 
beauties,,  for  which  he  invented  the  fantastic,  and,  to 
Roman  writers,  supremely  ludicrous  epithet  of  *'  amber 
tresses."  If  Otho  Avas  one  of  the  worst  corrupters  of  Nero's 
character,  he  was  punished  by  the  loss  of  his  wife,  and  Nero 
was  punished  by  forming  a  connexion  with  a  woman  who 
instigated  him  to  yet  more  frightful  enormities.  Up  to  this 
time  his  crimes  had  been  mainly  confined  to  the  interior  of 
the  palace,  and  his  follies  had  taken  no  w^orse  form  than 
safe  and  cowardly  outrages  on  defenceless  passengers  in  the 
streets  at  night,  after  the  fashion  of  the  Mohawks  of  the 
days  of  Queen  Anne.  But  from  the  day  that  he  first  saw 
Poppaea  a  headlong  deterioration  is  traceable  in  his  charac- 
ter. She  established  a  complete  influence  over  him,  and 
drove  him  by  her  taunts  and  allurements  to  that  crime 
which,  even  among  his  many  enormities,  is  the  most  damn- 
ing blot  upon  his  character — the  murder  of  his  mother. 

That  wretched  princess  was  spending  the  last  year  of  a 
life  which  had  scarcely  passe^i  its  full  prime  in  detested  in- 
famy, such  as  in  our  own  history  attended  the  last  stage  in 
the  career  of  the  Countess  of  Somerset,  the  wife  of  James's 
unworthy  favourite,  Robert  Carr,  Worse  than  this,  she 
lived  in  daily  dread  of  assassination.  Her  watchfulness 
evaded  all  attempts  at  poisoning,  and  she  w^as  partly  pro- 
tected against  them  by  the  current  fiction  that  she  had  forti- 
fied herself  by  the  use  of  antidotes.  Plots  to  murder  her  by 
the  apparently  accidental  fall  of  the  fretted  roof  in  one  of 
the  chambers  of  her  villa  were  frustrated  by  the  warning 
which  she  received  from  her  spies.  At  last,  Anicetus,  a 
freedman,  admiral  of  the  fleet  at  Misenum,  promised  Nero 
to  secure  her  end  in  an  unsuspicious  manner  by  means  of  a 
ship  which  should  suddenly  fall  to  pieces  in  mid-sea.  Nero 
invited  her  to  a  banquet  at  Baia?,  which  was  to  be  the  sign 
of  their  public  reconciliation.  Declining,  however,  to  sail 
in  the  pinnace  which  had  been  surreptitiously  fitted  up  for 
her  use,  she  was  carried  to  her  son's  villa  in  her  own  litter. 
There  she  was  received  with  such  hilarity  and  blandish- 
ment, such  long  embraces  and  affectionate  salutations,  that 
her  suspicions  were  dispelled.  She  consented  to  return  by 
water,  and  went   on    board   the  treacherous  vessel.      It   had 


30  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

not  proceeded  f.lr  when  the  heavily-weighted  canopy  under 
which  she  reclined  was  made  to  fall  with  a  great  crash.  One 
of  her  ladies  was  killed  on  the  spot.  Immediately  after- 
wards the  bolts  which  held  the  vessel  together  w^ere  pulled 
out,  and  Agrippina,  whose  life  had  been  saved  by  the  pro- 
jecting sides  of  her  couch,  found  herself  struggling  in  the 
waves.  A  lady  who  was  with  her,  named  Acerronia,  think- 
ing to  save  her  own  life,  exclaimed  that  she  was  the  Em- 
press, and  was  instantly  beaten  down  with  poles  and  oars. 
Agrippina  kept  silence,  and  escaping  with  a  single  bruise 
on  her  shoulder,  she  swam  or  floated  safely  till  she  was 
picked  up  by  a  boat  sent  from  the  shore,  which  was  glitter- 
ing with  lights  and  thronged  with  visitors  who  were  enjoy- 
ing the  cool  evening  air.  The  wretched  victim  saw  througli 
the  whole  plot,  but  thought  it  best  to  treat  the  matter  as  an 
accident,  and  sent  one  of  her  freedmen,  named  Agerinus,  to 
announce  to  Nero  her  fortunate  escape.  Nero  had  ah-eady 
received  the  news  with  unfeigned  alarm.  Would  the 
haughty,  vindictive  woman  fire  the  soldiery  with  the  tale  of 
her  wrongs  ?  would  she  throw  herself  on  the  compassion  of 
the  Senate  and  the  people  ?  would  she  arm  her  slaves  to 
take  vengeance  on  her  murderer?  Burrus  and  Seneca  were 
hastily  summoned.  To  them  the  Emperor  appealed  in  the 
extreme  agitation  of  unsuccessful  guilt.  In  silence  and  an- 
guish the  soldier  and  the  Stoic  felt,  as  they  listened  to  the 
tale,  how  fatal  to  their  reputation  was  their  prosperous  com- 
plicity with  the  secrets  of  such  a  court.  Seneca  was  the  first 
to  break  the  silence.  He  asked  his  colleague  "whether  the 
Praetorians  should  be  ordered  to  put  her  to  death."  In  that 
hour  he  must  have  tasted  the  very  dregs  of  the  bitter  cup 
of  moral  degradation.  Perhaps  the  two  ministers  excused 
themselves  with  the  sophism  that  things  had  now  gone  too 
far  to  prevent  the  commission  of  a  crime,  and  that  either 
Agrippina  or  Nero  must  perish.  But  Burrus  replied  that 
"the  Pr^etorians  would  never  lift  a  hand  against  the  daugh- 
ter of  their  beloved  Germanicus.  Eet  Anicetus  fulfil  his 
promises."  Miserable  soldier  !  miserable' philosopher  !  Stoi- 
cism has  been  often  exalted  at  the  expense  of  Christianity. 
Let  the  world  remember  the  two  scenes,  in  one  of  which  the 
polished  Stoic,  in  the  other  the  Christian  Apostle  stood— 
the  one  a  magnificent  minister,  the  other  a  fettered  prisoner 
— in  the  presence  of  the  lord  of  the  world  ! 

Anicetus  rose  to  the  occasion,  and,  amid  the  ecstatic  ex- 
pressions of  Nero's  gratitude,  claimed  as  his  own  the  con- 


THE    FEATURES   OF   THE   ANTICHRIST.  3 1 

summation  of  the  deed.  On  the  arrival  of  Ageriniis  with 
the  message  of  Agrippina,  Anicetus  suddenly  flung  a  dagger 
at  the  wretched  man's  feet,  and  then,  declaring  that  Agrip- 
pina had  sent  him  to  murder  her  son,  loaded  him  with 
chains.  By  this  transparent  device  he  hoped  to  persuade 
the  world  that  Agrippina  had  been  detected  in  a  conspiracy, 
and  had  committed  suicide  from  very  shame.  The  news 
of  her  recent  peril  had  caused  the  wildest  excitement  among 
the  idlers  on  the  shore.  Anicetus,  with  his  armed  emissaries, 
had  to  assume  a  threatening  attitude  as  he  made  his  way 
through  the  agitated  throng.  Surrounding  the  villa  and 
bursting  open  the  door,  he  seized  the  few  slaves  who  yet 
lingered  near  the  chamber  of  their  mistress.  Within  that 
chamber,  by  the  light  of  a  single  lamp,  Agrippina,  attended 
only  by  one  hand-maid,  was  awaiting  in  intense  anxiety  and 
with  misgivings  which  became  deeper  and  deeper  at  every 
moment,  the  suspicious  delay  in  the  return  of  her  faithful 
messenger.  The  slave-girl  rose  and  left  the  room.  '*  Do 
you  too  desert  me  ?  "  she  exclaimed  ;  and  at  that  moment 
the  door  was  darkened  by  the  entrance  of  Anicetus,  with 
the  trierarch  Herculeius  and  the  naval  centurion  Obaritus. 
*'  If  you  have  come  to  inquire  about  my  health,"  said  the 
undaunted  woman,  *'  say  that  I  have  recovered.  If  to  coin- 
mit  a  crime,  I  will  not  believe  that  you  have  my  son's 
orders  ;  he  would  not  command  a  matricide."  Returning 
no  answer,  the  murderers  surrounded  her  bed,  and  the  trier- 
arch  struck  her  on  the  head  Avith  his  stick.  '*  Strike  my 
womb,"  she  exclaimed,  as  the  centurion  drew  his  sword,  *'  it 
bore  a  Nero."  These  were  her  last  words  before  she  sank 
down  slain,  with  many  wounds.  There  is  no  need  to  darken 
with  further  and  unaccredited  touches  of  horror  the  dread- 
ful story  of  her  end.  The  old  presage  which  she  had  ac- 
cepted was  fulfilled.  She  had  made  her  sou  an  Emperor, 
and  he  had  rewarded  her  by  assassination.  Such  was  the 
awful  unpitied  end  of  one  on  whose  birthday  and  in  whose 
honour  in  that  very^  year  altars  had  smoked  with  sacrifices 
offered  at  the  feet  of  the  god  Honour  and  the  goddess  Con- 
cordia. ' 

When  the  crime  was  over,  Nero  first  perceived  its  mag- 
nitude, and  was  seized  with  the  agony  of  a  too  brief  terror 
and  remorse.     There  is  in  great  crimes  an  awful  power  of 


'  As  shown  by  inscriptions  of  the  Fratres  Arvales  (De  Rossi,  Bull.  Arcl'Jol.,  \Z6'o\      See 
Champagny,  I.es  Cesars.  \i.  194. 


32  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

illumination.  They  light  up  the  conscience  with  a  glare 
which  shows  all  things  in  their  true  hideousness.  He  spent 
the  night  in  oppressive  silence.  For  the  first  time  in  his 
life  his  sleep  was  disturbed  by  dreams.  He  often  started  up 
in  terror,  and  dreaded  the  return  of  dawn.  The  gross  flat- 
tery and  hypocritical  congratulations  of  his  friends  soon 
dissipated  all  personal  alarm.  But  scenes  cannot  change 
their  aspect  so  easily  as  the  countenances  of  men,  and  there 
was  to  him  a  deadly  look  in  the  sea  and  shore.  From  the 
lofty  summit  of  Misenum  ghostly  wailings  and  the  blast  of 
a  solitary  trumpet  seemed  to  reach  him  from  his  mother's 
grave.  He  despatched  a  letter  to  the  Senate,  full  of  the  in- 
genious and  artificial  turns  of  expression  wiiich  betrayed, 
alas  !  the  style  of  Seneca  ;  and  in  it  he  charged  his  mother's 
memory  with  the  very  crimes  of  which  he  had  himself  been 
guilty.  But  though  he  recalled  her  enemies  from  exile,  and 
threw  down  her  statues,  and  raked  up  every  evil  action  of 
her  life,  and  insinuated  that  she  had  been  the  cause  of  the 
enormities  which  had  disgraced  the  reign  of  Claudius,  men 
hardly  affected  to  believe  his  exculpation,  and  the  very  mob 
charged  him  with  matricide  in  their  epigrams  and  scrib- 
blings  on  the  statues  and  w^alls  of  Rome.'  But  yet  when 
he  returned  to  Rome  the  whole  populace,  from  the  Senate 
downwards,  poured  forth  to  give  him  a  reception  so  enthu- 
siastic and  triumphant  that  every  remnant  of  shame  was 
dispelled  from  his  mind.  Feeling  for  the  first  time  that  no 
wickedness  was  too  abnormal  to  shake  his  absolute  power 
over  a  nation  of  slaves,  he  plunged  without  stint  or  remorse 
into  that  career  of  infamy  w^hich  has  made  his  name  the  syn- 
onym of  everything  which  is  degraded,  cruel,  and  impure.' 
Through  the  separate  details  of  that  career  we  need  not 
follow  him.  The  depths^  into  which  he  sank  are  too  abys- 
mal for  utterance.  Even  Pagan  historians  could  not  witli- 
out  a  blush  hold  up  a  torch  in  those  crypts  of  shame.'  How- 
he  established  games  in  which  he  publicly  appeared  upon 
the  stage,  and  compelled  members  of  the  noblest  Roman 
families  to  imitate  his  degradation  ;  on  how  vast  a  scale,  and 
with  how  vile  a  stain,  he  deliberately  corrupted  the  whole 
tone  of  Roman  society  ;  how  he  openly  declared  that  the 
consummation  of  art  was  a  false  sestheticism,  corrupt  and 
naked,  and  not  ashamed;^    how   he   strove   to  revive   the 

'  Suet.  Ner.  3  ;   Dion  Cass.  Ixi.  16.  "  Tac.  Atni.  xiv.  13. 

3  Rev.  ii.  24.  **  2  Cor.  iv.  2. 

''  Suet.  Ner.  Ixxx.  29,  30  ;  Dion  Cass.  Ixi.  4,  5. 


THE   FEATURES   OF   THE   ANTICHRIST.  33 

flagging  pulse  of  exhausted  pleasure  by  unheard-of  enor- 
mities, and  strove  to  make  shame  shameless  by  undisguised 
publicity  ;  how  he  put  to  death  the  last  descendant  of  Au- 
gustus/ the  last  descendant  of  Tiberius,  and  the  last  descen- 
dant of  the  Clauclii  ;  how  he  ended  the  brief  but  heartrend- 
ing tragedy  of  the  life  of  Octavia  by  defaming  her  innocence, 
driving  her  to  the  island  of  Pandataria,  and  there  enforcing 
her  assassination  under  circumstances  so  sad  as  might  have 
moved  the  hardiest  villain  to  tears  ;  how  he  hastened  by 
poison  the  death  of  Burrus,  and  entrusted  the  vast  power  of 
the  Praetorian  command  to  Tigellinus,  one  of  the  vilest  of 
the  human  race  ;  how,  when  he  had  exhausted  the  treasures 
amassed  by  the  dignified  economy  of  Claudius,  he  filled  his 
coffers  by  confiscating  the  estates  of  innocent  victims  ;  how 
he  caused  the  death  of  his  second  wife,  Poppsea,  by  a  kick 
inflicted  on  her  when  she  w^as  in  a  delicate  condition  ;  how, 
after  the  detection  of  the  conspiracy  of  Piso,  he  seemed  to 
revel  in  blood  ;  how  he  ordered  the  death  of  Seneca  ;  how, 
by  the  execution  of  Paetus  Thrasea  and  Barea  Soranus,  he 
strove  to  extinguish  the  last  embers  of  Roman  magna- 
nimity, and  to  slay  "  virtue  itself  ;  "  ^  how  wretches  like 
Vatinius  became  the  cherished  favourites  of  his  court  ;  how 
his  reign  degenerated  into  one  perpetual  orgy,  at  once  mon- 
strous and  vulgar; — into  these  details,  fortunately,  we  need 
not  follow  his  awful  career.  His  infamous  follies  and  cruel- 
ties in  Greece  ;  his  dismal  and  disgraceful  fall — a  tragedy 
without  pathos,  and  a  ruin  without  dignity — all  this  must  be 
read  in  the  pages  of  contemporary  historians.  Probably  no 
man  who  ever  lived  has  crowded  into  fourteen  years  of  life 
so  black  a  catalogue  of  iniquities  as  this  Collot  d'Herbois 
upon  an  imperial  throne.  The  seeds  of  innumerable  vices 
were  latent  in  the  soil  of  his  disposition,  and  the  hot-bed  of 
absolutism  forced  them  into  rank  growth.  To  speak  thus 
much  of  him  and  of  his  reign  has  been  necessary,  because 
he  was  the  epitome  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived — the  con- 
summate flower  of  Pagan  degradation  at  the  time  when  the 
piu-e  bud  of  Christian  life  was  being  nurtured  into  beauty, 
amid  cold  arid  storm.  But  here  we  must  for  the  present 
leave  the  general  story  of  his  reign,  to  give  our  attention  to 
the  one  event  which  brought  him  into  collision  with  the 
Christian  Cliurch. 


A  son  of  the  M.  Jun.  Silamiswhom  Gaius  called  "  the  golden  sheep"  (Tac.  Anft.  xvi.  9). 
Tac.  Ann.  xvi.  21. 


34  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  BURNING  OF  ROME,   AND  THE  FIRST  PERSECUTION. 

"  Mira  Nero  de  Tarpeya 
A  Roma  como  se  ardia 
Gritos  dan  niiios  y  viejos 
Y  el  de  nada  se  dolia. 
Que  alegre  vista  !  " 

Had  it  not  been  for  one  crime  with  which  all  ancient 
writers  have  mixed  up  his  name,  Christianity  might  have 
left  Nero  on  one  side,  not  speaking  of  him,  but  simply 
looking  and  passing  by,  while  he,  on  his  part,  might  scarcely 
so  much  as  have  heard  of  the  existence  of  Christians  amid  the 
crowded  thousands  of  his  capital.  That  crime  was  the 
burning  of  Rome  ;  and  by  precipitating  the  Era  of  Martyr- 
dom, it  brought  him  into  immediate  and  terrible  connexion 
with  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Whether  he  was  really  guilty  or  not  of  having  ordered 
that  immense  conflagration,  it  is  certain  that  he  was  sus- 
pected of  it  by  his  contemporaries,  and  has  been  chargeci 
with  it  by  many  historians  of  his  country.^  It  is  certain, 
also,  that  his  head  had  been  full  for  years  of  the  image  of 
flaming  cities  ;  that  he  used  to  say  that  Priam  was  to  be 
congratulated  on  having  seen  the  ruin  of  Troy  ;  that  he  was 
never  able  to  resist  the  fixed  idea  of  a  crime  ;  ^  that  the  year 
following  he  gave  a  public  recitation  of  a  poem  called  Troica, 
from  the  orchestra  of  the  theatre,  and  that  this  w^as  only  the 
burning  of  Rome  under  a  thin  disguise  ;^  and  that  just  be- 
fore his  flight  he  meditated  setting  fire  to  Rome  once  more.* 
It  was  rumoured  that  when  some  one  had  told  him  how 
Gains  used  to  quote  the  phrase  of  Euripides — 

"When  I  am  dead,   sink  the  whole  earth  in  flames'" 

he  replied,  "Nay,  but  while  I  live  !"     He  w-as  accused  of 

1  Tac.  Auft.  XV.  67  (cf.  38)  ;  Suet.  Ner.  38  ;  Dion  Cass.  Ixii.  16 ;  Pliny,  //.  iV.  xvii.  i,  1  : 
followed  by  Orosius,  Sulpicius,  Severus,  Eutropius,  etc. 

2  Rcnan,  IJAfitec/irist,  p.  144. 

^  Dion  Cass.  Ixii.  29;  Juv.  viii.  221.  Eutropius  says  that  he  burnt  Rome:  "  Ut  spec- 
taculi  ejus  imaginem  cerneret  quali  olim  Troja  capta  evaserat."  Ampere  says,  "  Pour  moi 
j'incline  k  I'admettre  "  {Hist.  Rom.  ii.  56).  Renan  thinks  that  this  poem  may  have  originated 
the  metaphor  that  he  played  his  lyre  over  the  ruins  of  his  country— which  was  afterwards 
taken  literally.  *  Suet.  Ner.  43. 


THE   BURNING   OF    ROME.  35 

the  ambition  of  destroying  Rome,  that  he  might  replace  its 
tortuous  and  narrow  lanes  with  broad,  regular  streets  and 
uniform  Hellenic  edifices,  and  so  have  un  excuse  for  chang- 
ing its  name  from  Rome  to  Neropolis.  It  was  believed 
that  in  his  morbid  appetite  for  new  sensations  he  was  quite 
capable  of  devising  a  truly  artistic  spectacle  which  would 
thrill  his  jaded  ccstheticism,  and  supply  hrm  with  vivid 
imagery  for  the  vapid  antitheses  of  his  poems.  It  was  both 
believed  and  recorded,  that  during  the  terrors  of  the  actual 
spectacle,  he  had  climbed  the  Tower  of  Maecenas,  had  ex- 
pressed his  delight  at  what  he  called  ''  the  flower  and  love- 
liness of  the  flames,"  and  in  his  scenic  dress  had  sung  on 
his  own  private  stage  the  ''  Capture  of  Ilium."  ^  It  was  said 
that  all  attempts  to  quench  the  fire  had  been  forcibly  re- 
sisted ;  that  men  had  been  seen  hurling  lighted  brands  upon 
various  buildings,  and  shouting  that  they  had  orders  for 
what  they  did  ;  that  men  of  even  Consular  rank  had  detected 
Nero's  slaves  on  their  own  property  with  tow  and  torches, 
and  had  not  ventured  to  touch  them  ;  that  when  the  wind 
had  changed,  and  there  was  a  lull  in  the  conflagration,  it 
had  burst  out  again  from  houses  that  abutted  on  the  gar- 
dens of  his  creature  Tigellinus.  At  any  rate,  the  Romans 
could  hardly  have  been  mistaken  in  thinking  that  Nero 
might  have  done  much  more  than  he  did,  to  encourage  the 
efforts  made  to  extinguish  the  flames.  It  was  remembered 
that,  a  few  years  earlier,  Claudius,  during  a  conflagration, 
had  been  seen,  two  nights  running,  seated  in  a  little  count- 
ing-office with  two  baskets  full  of  silver  at  his  side,  to  en- 
courage the  firemen,  and  secure  the  assistance  of  the  people 
and  the  soldiers.  Nero  certainly,  in  this  far  more  frightful 
crisis,  did  nothing  of  the  kind.  Even  if  some  of  the  ru- 
mours which  tended  to  implicate  him  in  having  caused  the 
calamity  had  no  better  foundation  than  idle  rumour,  or  the 
interested  plots  of  robbers  who  seized  the  opportunity  for 
promiscuous  plunder,  they  acquired  plausibility  from  the 
whole  colour  of  Nero's  character  and  conversation,  and  they 
seemed  to  be  justified  by  the  way  in  which  he  used  for  his 
own  advantage  the  disaster  of  his  people.  For  immediately 
after  the  fire  he  seized  a  much  larger  extent  of  groimd  than 
he  had  previously  possessed,  and  began  to  rear  with  incred- 

*  The  one  circumstance  which  tends  to  exculpate  him  from  some  of  these  motives  is  that 
he  was  at  Antium  when  the  fire  broke  out.  and  did  not  arrive  in  Rome  till  the  third  day.  when 
the  flames  had  rolled  to  the  gardens  of  Maecenas,  and  his  own  "Domus  Transitoria"  (Tac. 
Ann.  XV.).  The  late  Mr.  G.  H.  Lewes  attempted  to  "rehabilitate"  the  character  of  Nero  : 
but  the  evidence  against  him  is  too  unanimous  to  be  set  aside. 


36  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ible  celerity  his  ''Golden  House,"  a  structure  unexampled 
in  the  ancient  world  for  gorgeous  magnificence.  It  was  in 
this  amazing  structure,  on  which  the  splendour  of  the  whole 
Empire  was  recklessly  squandered,  that  Nero  declared,  with 
a  smirk  of  self-satisfaction,  that  now  at  last  he  was  lodged 
like  a  human  being  ! 

But  whether  Nero  was  guilty  of  this  unparalleled  out- 
rage on  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  his  subjects  or  not,  certain 
it  is  that  on  July  19,  a.d.  64,  in  the  tenth  year  of  his  reign, 
a  fire  broke  out  in  shops  full  of  inflammable  materials 
which  lined  the  valley  between  the  Palatine  and  Caelian 
Hills.  For  six  days  and  seven  nights  it  rolled  in  streams  of 
resistless  flame  over  the  greater  part  of  the  city,  licking  up 
the  palaces  and  temples  of  tlie  gods  which  covered  the  low 
hills,  and  raging  through  whole  streets  of  the  wretched 
wooden  tenements  in  which  dwelt  myriads  of  the  poorer  in- 
habitants who  crowded  the  lower  regions  of  Rome.  When 
its  course  had  been  checked  by  the  voluntary  destruction  of 
a  vast  mass  of  buildings  which  lay  in  its  path,  it  broke  out 
a  second  time,  and  raged  for  three  days  longer  in  the  less 
crowded  quarters  of  the  city,  where  its  spread  was  even 
more  fatal  to  public  buildings  and  the  ancient  shrines  of 
the  gods.  Never  since  the  Gauls  burnt  Rome  had  so  deadly 
a  calamity  fallen  on  the  afflicted  city.  Of  its  fourteen  dis- 
tricts, four  alone  escaped  untouched  ;  three  were  completely 
laid  in  ashes  ;  in  the  seven  others  were  to  be  seen  the 
wrecks  of  many  buildings,  scathed  and  gutted  by  the  flames. 
The  disaster  to  the  city  Avas  historically  irreparable.  If 
Nero  was  indeed  guilty,  then  the  act  of  a  wretched  buffoon, 
mad  with  the  diseased  sensibility  of  a  depraved  nature,  has 
robbed  the  world  of  works  of  art,  and  memorials,  and 
records,  priceless  and  irrecoverable.  We  can  rather  imagine 
than  describe  the  anguish  with  which  the  Romans,  bitterly 
conscious  of  their  own  degeneracy,  contemplated  the  de- 
struction of  the  relics  of  their  national  glory  in  the  days 
when  Rome  was  free.  What  could  ever  replace  for  them  or 
their  children  such  monuments  as  the  Temple  of  Luna,  built 
by  Servius  Tullius  ;  and  the  Ara  Maxima^  which  the  Arca- 
dian Evander  had  reared  to  Hercules  ;  and  the  Temple  of 
Jupiter  Stator,  built  in  accordance  \\  ith  the  vow  of  Romulus; 
and  the  little  humble  palace  of  Numa  ;  and  the  shrine  of 
Vesta  with  the  Penates  of  the  Roman  people  and  the  spoils 
of  conquered  kings  ?  What  structural  magnificence  could 
atone  for  the  loss  of   memorials  which  the  song  of  Virgil 


THE    BURNING    OF    ROME.  3/ 

and  of  Horace  had  rendered  still  niore  dear  ?  *  The  city 
might  rise  more  regular  from  its  ashes,  and  with  broader 
streets,  but  its  artificial  uniformity  was  a  questionable  boon. 
Old  men  declared  that  the  new  streets  w^ere  far  less  healthy, 
in  consequence  of  their  more  scorching  glare,  and  they 
muttered  among  themselves  that  many  an  object  of  national 
interest  had  been  wantonly  sacrificed  to  gratify  the  womanish 
freak  of  a  miserable  actor. 

But  the  sense  of  permanent  loss  was  overw^helmed  at 
first  by  the  immediate  confusion  and  agony  of  the  scene. 
Amid  the  sheets  of  flame  that  roared  on  every  side  under 
their  dense  canopy  of  smoke,  the  shrieks  of  terrified  \vomen 
and  the  wail  of  infants  and  children  were  heard  above  the 
crash  of  falling  houses.  The  incendiary  fires  seemed  to  be 
bursting  forth  in  so  many  directions,  that  men  stood  staring 
in  dumb  stupefaction  at  the  destruction  of  their  property, 
or  rushed  hither  and  thither  in  helpless  amazement.  The 
lanes  and  alleys  were  blocked  up  with  the  concourse  of 
struggling  fugitives.  Many  were  suffocated  by  the  smoke, 
or  trampled  down  in  the  press.  Many  others  were  burnt  to 
death  in  their  own  burning  houses,  some  of  whom  purposely 
flung  themselves  into  the  flames  in  the  depth  of  their  des- 
pair. The  density  of  the  population  that  found  shelter  in 
the  huge  many-storied  lodging-houses  increased  the  diffi- 
culty of  escape  ;  and  when  they  had  escaped  with  bare  life, 
a  vast  multitude  of  homeless,  shivering,  hungry  human 
beings— many  of  them  bereaved  of  their  nearest  and  dearest 
relatives,  many  of  them  personally  injured,  and  most  of  them 
deprived  of  all  their  possessions,  and  destitute  of  the  means 
of  subsistence — found  themselves  huddled  together  in  va- 
cant places  in  one  vast  brotherhood  of  hopeless  wretched- 
ness. Incidents  like  these  are  not  often  described  by  ancient 
authors.  As  a  rule,  the  classic  writers  show  themselves  sin- 
gularly callous  to  all  details  of  individual  misery.  But  this 
disaster  was  on  a  scale  so  magnificent,  that  it  had  impressed 
the  imaginations  of  men  who  often  treat  the  anguish  of  mul- 
titudes as  a  matter  of  course. 

Even  if  he  had  been  destitute  of  every  human  feeling, 
yet  policy  and  necessity  would  have  induced  Nero  to 
take  what  steps  he  could  to  alleviate  the  immediate  pres- 
sure. To  create  discontent  and  misery  could  never  have 
formed  any  part  of  his  designs.     He  threw  open  the  Campus 


Virg.  yEfi.  viii.  271  ;  Hor.  0(^.  I.  ii.  15,  16. 


38  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Martius,  the  MonumenXa  iVgrippae,  even  his  own  gardens, 
to  the  people.  Temporary  buildings  were  constructed  ;  all 
the  furniture  which  was  most  indispensable  was  brought 
from  Ostia  and  neighbouring  towns  ;  wheat  was  sold  at  about 
a  fourth  of  the  average  price.  It  was  all  in  vain.  The 
misery  which  it  was  believed  that  his  criminal  folly  had  in- 
flicted kindled  a  sense  of  wrong  too  deeply  seated  to  be  re- 
moved by  remedies  for  the  past,  or  precautions  for  the  fu- 
ture. The  resentment  was  kept  alive  by  the  benevolences 
and  imposts  which  Nero  now  demanded,  and  by  the  greedy 
ostentation  Avith  which  he  seized  every  beautiful  or  valuable 
object  to  adorn  the  insulting  splendour  of  a  palace  built  on 
the  yet  warm  ashes  of  so  wide  an  area  of  the  ruined  city. 


Nero  was  so  secure  in  his  absolutism,  he  had  hitherto 
found  it  so  impossible  to  shock  the  feelings  of  the  people  or 
to  exhaust  the  terrified  adulation  of  the  Senate,  that  he  was 
usually  indifferent  to  the  pasquinades  which  were  constantly 
holding  up  his  name  to  execration  and  contempt.  But  now 
he  felt  that  he  had  gone  too  far,  and  that  his  power  would 
be  seriously  imperilled  if  he  did  not  succeed  in  diverting 
the  suspicions  of  the  populace.  He  was  perfectly  aware 
that  when  the  people  in  the  streets  cursed  those  Avho  set 
lire  to  the  city,  they  meant  to  curse  him}  If  he  did  not  take 
some  immediate  step  he  felt  that  he  might  perish,  as  Gains 
had  perished  before  him,  by  the  dagger  of  the  assassin. 

It  is  at  this  point  of  his  career  that  Nero  becomes  a 
prominent  figure  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  It  was  this 
phase  of  cruelty  which  seemed  to  throw  a  blood-red  light 
over  his  whole  character,  and  led  men  to  look  on  him  as  the 
very  incarnation  of  the  world-power  in  its  most  demoniac 
aspect — as  worse  than  the  Antiochus  Epiphanes  of  Daniel's 
Apocalypse — as  the  Man  of  Sin  whom  (in  language  figura- 
tive indeed,  yet  awfully  true)  the  Lord  should  slay  with  the 
breath  of  His  mouth  and  destroy  with  the  brightness  of  His 
coming.^  For  Nero  endeavoured  to  fix  the  odious  crime  of 
having  destroyed  the  capital  of  the  world  upon  the  most  in- 
nocent and  faithful  of  his  subjects — upon  the  only  subjects 

'  Dion  Cass.  Ixii.  18. 

2  See  Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei,  xx.  ig  :  Lactam.  Di7>.  hntt.  vii.  \6  ;  De  Mart.  Perstw  n.  ad 
fin.;  Chr>'Sost.  in  2  Thess.,  Horn.  iv.  ;  Sulp.  Sev.  Hist.  ii.  29;  40,  42;  Dial.  ii.  ad  JiJi.; 
Jcr.  in  Dan.  xi.  ;  Orac.  Sibyll.  iv.  135-138,  v.  362,  viii.  i,  153  ;  Verses  of  Commodianus,  in 
Spicils^.  of  .Solcsmes,  Paris,  1852. 


THE    FIRST   PERSECUTION.  39 

who  offered  heartfelt  prayers  on  his  belialf ' — the  Roman 
Christians.  They  were  the  defenceless  victims  of  this  horrible 
charge  ;  for  though  they  were  the  most  harmless,  they  were 
also  the  most  hated  and  the  most  slandered  of  living  men.^ 

Why  he  should  have  thought  of  singling  out  the  Chris- 
tians, has  always  been  a  curious  problem,  for  at  this  point 
St.  Luke  ends  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  yjerhaps  purposely 
dropping  the  curtain,  because  it  would  have  been  perilous 
and  useless  to  narrate  the  horrors  in  which  the  hitherto 
neutral  or  friendly  Roman  Government  began  to  play  so 
disgraceful  a  part.  Neither  Tacitus,  nor  Suetonius,  nor  the 
Apocalypse,  help  us  to  solve  this  particular  problem.  The 
Christians  had  filled  no  large  space  in  the  eye  of  the  world. 
Until  the  days  of  Domitian  we  do  not  hear  of  a  single  noble 
or  distinguished  person  who  had  joined  their  ranks.'  That 
the  Pudens  and  Claudia  of  Rom.  xvi.  were  the  Pudens  and 
Claudia  of  Martial's  Epigrams  seems  to  me  to  be  a  baseless 
dream.*  If  the  "foreign  superstition"  with  which  Pom- 
ponia  Graecina,  wife  of  Aulus  Plautius,  the  conqueror  of 
Britain,  was  charged,  and  of  which  she  was  acquitted,  was 
indeed,  as  has  been  suspected,  the  Christian  religion,  at  any 
rate  the  name  of  Christianity  was  not  alluded  to  by  the  an- 
cient writers  who  had  mentioned  the  circumstance.^  Even 
if  Rom.  xvi.  was  addressed  to  Rome,  and  not,  as  I  believe, 
to  Ephesus,  "they  of  the  household  of  Narcissus  which 
were  in  the  Tord"  were  unknown  slaves,  as  also  were  "they 
of  Caesar's  household."^  The  slaves  and  artisans,  Jewish 
and  Gentile,  who  formed  the  Christian  communit)^  at  Rome, 
had  never  in  any  way  come  into  collision  with  the  Roman 
Government.  The)^  must  have  been  the  victims  rather  than 
the  exciters  of  the  Messianic  tumults — for  such  they  are 
conjectured  to  have  been — which  led  to  the  expulsion  of  the 
Jews  from  Rome  by  the  futile  edict  of  Claudius.''  Nay,  so 
obedient  and  docile  were  they  required  to  be  by  the  very 
principles  on  which  their  morality  was  based — so  far  were 
they  removed  from  the  fierce  independence  of  the  Jewish 
zealots — that,  in  writing  to  them  a  few  years  earlier,  the 
greatest  of  their  leaders  had  urged  upon  them  a  payment 
of  tribute  and  a  submission  to  the  higher  powers,  not  only 
for  wrath  but  also  for  conscience'  sake,  because  the  earthly 


•  Rom.  xiii.  1-7  ;  Tit.  iii.  i  ;  i  Pet.  ii.  13.     See  Tert.  AJiol.  29-33. 

-  I  Pet.  iii.  13-17,  iv.  12-19.  ^  Suet.  Dom.  15. 

''  See  Life  and  IVorkofSt.  Pattl^  ii.  569.  ^  Tac.  Anfi.  .\iii.  32, 

°  Rom.  xvi.  II  ;   Phil.  iv.  22  ;    Life  and  IVork  0/ St.  Paul,  ii.  165. 

■^  Suet.   Ci'iiiid.  25. 


40  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ruler,  in  his  office  of  repressing  evil  works,  is  a  minister  of 
God/  That  the  Christians  were  entirely  innocent  of  the 
crime  charged  against  them  was  well  known  both  at  the 
time  and  afterwards."  But  how  was  it  that  Nero  sought 
popularity  and  partly  averted  the  deep  rage  which  was 
rankling  in  many  hearts  against  himself,  by  torturing  men 
and  women,  on  whose  agonies  he  thought  that  the  populace 
would  gaze  not  only  with  a  stolid  indifference,  but  even 
with  fierce  satisfaction  ? 

Gibbon  has  conjectured  that  the  Christians  w^ere  con- 
founded with  the  Jews,  and  that  the  detestation  universally 
felt  for  the  latter  fell  with  double  force  upon  the  former. 
Christians  suffered  even  more  than  the  Jews  because  of  the 
calumnies  so  assiduously  circulated  against  them,  and  from 
what  appeared  to  the  ancients  to  be  the  revolting  absurdity 
of  their  peculiar  tenets.  "  Nero,"  says  Tacitus,  ''exposed  to 
accusation,  and  tortured  wdth  the  most  exquisite  penalties,  a 
set  of  men  detested  for  their  enormities,  whom  the  common 
people  called  ''  Christians.'  Christus,  the  founder  of  this  sect, 
was  executed  during  the  reign  of  Tiberius  by  the  Procurator 
Pontius  Pilate,  and  the  deadly  superstition,  suppressed  for  a 
time,  began  to  burst  out  once  more,  not  only  throughout  Ju- 
daea, w^here  the  evil  had  its  root,  but  even  in  the  City,  whither 
from  every  quarter  all  things  horrible  or  shameful  are  drift- 
ed, and  find  their  votaries."  The  lordly  disdain  which  pre- 
vented Tacitus  from  making  any  inquiry  into  the  real  views 
and  character  of  the  Christians,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
he  catches  up  the  most  baseless  allegations  against  them. 
He  talks  of  their  doctrines  as  savage  and  shameful,  when 
they  breathed  the  very  spirit  of  peace  and  purity.  Fie 
cliarges  them  Avith  being  animated  by  a  hatred  of  their  kind, 
when  their  central  tenet  was  an  vmiversal  charity.  The 
masses,  he  says,  called  them  "  Christians  ;"  and  while  he 
almost  apologises  for  staining  his  page  with  so  vulgar  an  ap- 
pellation," he  merely  mentions  in  passing,  that,  though  in- 

1  Rom.  xiii.  5. 

2  It  is  involved  at  once  in  the  "  subdidit  reos  "  ofTac.  Ann.  v.  44. 

3  Pet.  iv.  14  ;  James  ii.  7.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  as  I  have  shown  in  the  Life  and 
JFork  of  St.  Paul,  i.  301,  that  the  name  "  Christian^'' — so  curiously  hybrid,  yet  so  richly 
expressive — was  a  nickname  due  to  the  wit  of  the  Antiochenes,  which  exercised  itself  quite 
fearlessly  even  on  the  Roman  Emperors.  'Ihey  were  not  afraid  to  affix  nicknames  to  Cara- 
calla,  and  to  call  Julian  Cecrops  and  Victimarius,  with  keen  satire  of  his  beard  (Herodian.  iv. 
9;  Ammian.  xxii.  14).  It  is  clear  that  the  sacred  writers  avoided  the  name,  because  it  was 
employed  by  their  enemies,  and  by  them  minglctl  with  terms  of  the  vilest  opprobrium  (Tac. 
Anti.  XV.  44).  It  only  became  familiar  when  the  virtues  of  Christians  had  shed  lustre  upon  it, 
and  when  alike  in  its  true  form,  and  in  the  ignorant  mispronunciation  "  Christians,"  it  readily 
lent  itself  to  valuable  allegorical  meanings  ( Tert.  Apol.  3  ;  Just.  iNIart.  Apol.  2 ;  Clem.  Alex. 
Strom,  ii.  4,  §  18  ;   Bingham,  i.  i,  §  11). 


THE   FIRST   PERSECUTION.  4 1 

nocent  of  the  charge  of  being  turbulent  incendiaries,  on 
which  they  were  tortured  to  death,  they  were  yet  a  set  of 
guilty  and  infamous  sectaries,  to  be  classed  with  the  lowest 
dregs  of  Roman  criminals.^ 

But  the  haughty  historian  throws  no  light  on  one  diffi- 
culty, namely,  the  circumstances  w^hich  led  to  the  Christians 
being  thus  singled  out.  The  Jews  were  in  no  way  involved 
in  Nero's  persecution.  To  persecute  the  Jews  at  Rome 
would  not  have  been  an  easy  matter.  They  were  sufficient- 
ly numerous  to  be  formidable,  and  had  overawed  Cicero  in 
the  zenith  of  his  fame.  Besides  this,  the  Jewish  religion 
Avas  recognised,  tolerated,  licensed.  Throughout  the  lengtli 
and  breadth  of  the  Empire,  no  man,  however  much  he  and 
his  race  might  be  detested  and  despised,  could  have  been 
burnt  or  tortured  for  the  mere  fact  of  being  a  Jew.  We 
hear  of  no  Jewish  martyrdoms  or  Jewish  persecutions  till 
we  come  to  the  times  of  the  Jewish  war,  and  then  chiefly  in 
Palestine  itself.  It  is  clear  that  a  shedding  of  blood — in 
fact,  some  form  or  other  of  human  sacrifice — was  impera- 
tively demanded  by  popular  feeling  as  an  expiation  of  the 
ruinous  crime  which  had  plunged  so  many  thousands  into 
the  depths  of  misery.  In  vain  had  the  Sibylline  Books  been 
once  more  consulted,  and  in  vain  had  public  prayer  been 
offered,  in  accordance  with  their  directions,  to  Vulcan  and 
the  goddesses  of  Earth  and  Hades.  In  vain  had  the  Roman 
matrons  walked  in  procession  in  dark  robes,  and  with  their 
long  hair  unbound,  to  propitiate  the  insulted  majesty  of  Juno, 
and  to  sprinkle  with  sea-water  her  ancient  statue.  In  vain 
had  largesses  been  lavished  upon  the  people,  and  propitia- 
tory sacrifices  offered  to  the  gods.  In  vain  had  public  ban- 
quets been  celebrated  in  honour  of  various  deities.  A  crime 
had  been  committed,  and  Romans  had  perished  unavenged. 
Blood  cried  for  blood,  before  the  sullen  suspicion  against 
Nero  could  be  averted,  or  the  indignation  of  Heaven  ap- 
peased. Nero  had  always  hated,  persecuted,  and  exiled  the 
philosophers,  and  no  doubt,  so  far  as  he  knew  anythiijg  of 
the  Christians — so  far  as  he  saw  among  his  own  countless 
slaves  any  who  had  embraced  this  superstition,  which  the 
elite  of  Rome  described  as  not  only  new,  but  "  execrable  " 
and  *'  malefic  "  '^ — he  would  hate  their  gravity  and  purity,  and 
feel   for   them  that  raging   envy  which  is  the  tribute  that. 


1  See,  on  the  crime  of  being  "a  Christian,"  Clem.  Alex.  Strotn.  iv.  ii,  §  i. 

2  Mala,  venefica,  exitiabilis,  execrabilis,  prava,  siiperstitio  (rac.  Ami.  xv.  44  ;  Suet.  i^r. 
16  ;  Plin,  EJ,,  c,2). 


42  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

virtue  receives  from  vice.  Moreover,  St.  Paul,  in  all  prob- 
ability, had  recently  stood  before  his  tribunal  ;  and  though 
lie  had  been  acquitted  on  the  special  charges  of  turbulence 
and  profanation,  respecting  which  he  had  appealed  to  Cae- 
sar, yet  during  the  judicial  inquiry  Nero  could  hardly  have 
failed  to  hear  from  the  emissaries  of  the  Sanhedrin  many  fierce 
slanders  of  a  sect  which  was  everywhere  spoken  against. 
The  Jews  were  by  far  the  deadliest  enemies  of  the  Chris- 
tians ;  and  two  persons  of  Jewish  proclivities  were  at  this 
time  in  close  proximity  to  the  person  of  the  Emperor.' 
One  was  the  pantomimist  Aliturus,  the  other  was  Poppaea, 
the  harlot  Empress."  The  Jews  were  in  communication 
with  these  powerful  favourites,  and  had  even  promised  Nero 
that  if  his  enemies  ever  prevailed  at  Rome  he  should  have 
the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem.^  It  is  not  even  impossible  that 
there  may  have  been  a  third  dark  and  evil  influence  at  work 
to  undermine  the  Christians,  for  about  this  very  time  the 
imscrupulous  Pharisee  Flavins  Josephus  had  availed  himself 
of  the  intrigues  of  the  palace  to  secure  the  liberation  of 
some  Jewish  priests.*  If,  as  seems  certain,  the  Jews  had  it 
in  their  power  during  the  reign  of  Nero  more  or  less  to 
shape  the  whisper  of  the  throne,  does  not  historical  induc- 
tion drive  us  to  conclude  with  some  confidence  that  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  Christians  as  scapegoats  and  victims  came 
from  them  ?  St.  Clement  says  in  his  Epistle  that  the  Chris- 
tians suffered  through  jealousy.  Whose  jealousy  ?  Who.  can 
tell  what  dark  secrets  lie  veiled  under  that  suggestive  word? 
Was  Acte  a  Christian,  and  was  Poppaea  jealous  of  her? 
That  suggestion  seems  at  once  inadequate  and  improbable, 
especially  as  Acte  w^as  not  hurt.  But  there  was  a  deadly 
jealousy  at  work  against  the  New  Religion.  To  the  Pagans, 
Christianity  was  but  a  religious  extravagance — contemptible, 
indeed,  but  otherwise  insignificant.  To  the  Jews,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was  an  object  of  hatred,  which  never  stopped 

'  ir«der  previous  F.mperors  we  read  of  the  Jewess  Acme,  a  slave  of  Livia,  and  the  Sama- 
ritan Thallus,  a  freedman  of  Tiberius  (Jos.  Aiitt.  xvii.  5,  §  7  :   B.  J.  i.  33,  §§  6,  7). 

2  According  to  John  of  Antioch  {Excerfta  Valesii,  p.  808),  and  the  Chronicou  PasckaU 
(i.  459),  Nero  was  originally  favourable  to  the  Christians,  and  put  Pilate  to  death,  for  which 
the  Jews  plotted  his  murder.  Comp.  Euseb.  H.  R.  ii.  22,  iv.  26  :  Keim,  Rom  unci  Christen- 
thujit,  179.  Poppaea"s  Judaism  is  inferred  from  her  refu.sing  to  be  burned,  and  requesting  to 
lie  embalmed  (Tac.  Atut.  xvi.  16);  from  her  adopting  the  custom  of  wearing  a  veil  in  the 
streets  [id.  xiii.  45) ;  from  the  favour  which  she  showed  to  Aliturus  and  Josephus  (Jos.  I'it. 
4  ;  Autt.  XX.  8,  §  11}  ;  and  from  the  term  0eocre/3>j?,  which  Josephus  applies  to  her. 

3  Suet.  A/'er.  40.  'J'iberius  Alexander,  the  nephew  of  Philo,  afterwards  Procurator  of  Judjea, 
was  a  person  of  influence  at  Rome  (Jos.  B.  J.  ii.  15.  §  1  ;  Juv.  i.  130) :  but  he  was  a  renegade, 
and  would  not  be  likely  to  hate  the  Christians.  It  is,  however,  remarkable  that  legend  attri- 
buted tSe  nngerof  Nero  to  the  conversion  0/  his  uristress  and  a  favourite  slave. 

*  Jos.  i'it.  3. 


THE    l-IRST   rKRSECUTION.  43 

short  oi  bloodshed  when  it  possessed  or  could  usurp  the 
power/  and  which,  though  long  suppressed  by  circum- 
stances, displayed  itself  in  all  the  intensity  of  its  virulence 
during  the  brief  spasm  of  the  dictatorship  of  Barcochba. 
Christianity  was  hateful  to  the  Jews  on  every  ground.  It 
nullified  their  Law.  It  liberated  all  Gentiles  from  the 
heavy  yoke  of  that  Law,  without  thereby  putting  them  on 
a  lower  level.  It  even  tended  to  render  those  who  were 
born  Jews  indifferent  to  the  institutions  of  Mosaism.  It 
was,  as  it  were,  a  fatal  revolt  and  schism  from  within,  more 
dangerous  than  any  assault  from  without.  And,  worse  than 
all,  it  was  by  the  Gentiles  confounded  with  the  Judaism 
which  was  its  bitterest  antagonist.  While  it  sheltered  its 
existence  under  the  mantle  of  Judaism,  as  a  7'eligio  licifa,  it 
drew  down  upon  the  religion  from  whose  bosom  it  sprang 
all  the  scorn  and  hatred  which  w^erc  attached  by  the  world 
to  its  own  especial  tenets  ;"  for  however  much  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  despised  the  Jews,  they  despised  still  more  the 
belief  that  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  the  world  \vas  a  cruci- 
fied malefactor  who  had  risen  from  the  dead.  I  see  in  the 
proselytism  of  Poppaea,  guided  by  Jewish  malice,  the  only 
adequate  explanation  of  the  first  Christian  persecution. 
Hers  was  the  jealousy  which  had  goaded  Nero  to  matricide; 
hers  not  improbably  was  the  instigated  fanaticism  of  a  pro- 
selyte which  urged  him  to  imbrue  his  hands  in  martyr 
blood.  And  she  had  her  reward.  A  woman  of  whom  Tacitus 
has  not  a  word  of  good  to  say,  and  who  seems  to  have  been 
repulsive  even  to  a  Suetonius,  is  handed  down  by  the  rene- 
gade Pharisee  as  *'a  devout  woman" — as  a  worshipper  of 
God!^ 

And,  indeed,  w^ien  once  the  Christians  w^ere  pointed  out 
to  the  popular  vengeance,  many  reasons  would  be  adduced 
to  prove  their  connexion  with  the  conflagration.  Temples 
had  perished — and  were  they  not  notorious  enemies  of  the 
temples?^  Did  not  popular  rumour  charge  them  with 
nocturnal  orgies  and  Thyestaean  feasts  ?  Suspicions  of 
incendiarism  were  sometimes  brought  against  Jews  ;*  but 
the  Jews' were  not  in  the  habit  of  talking,  as  these  sectaries 

}  Compare  what  St.  Paul  says  about  the  virulence  of  Jewish  enmity  in  i  Thess.  ii.  14-16; 
Phil.  iii.  2.  Yet  Christianity  grew  up  "  sub  umbraculo  licitae  Judaeorum  religionis"  (Tert. 
A^ol.  21). 

2  fleoo-ejSijs  (Jos.  Antt.  xx.  7,  §  11).  The  word  means  a  "  monotheist."  or  proselyte,  like 
ce^ojaecos  (Acts  xiii.  43,  xvi.  14,  etc.).     See  Huidekoper,  Judaism  at  Rojne,  pp    462-469. 

8  As  were  also  the  Jews,  who  were  confounded  with  them.  Rom.  ii.  22,  '*  Dost  thou  (a 
Jew)  rob  temples?"     See  Life  and  Work  0/ St.  Paul,  ii.  202. 

«  Jos.  B.  y.  vii.  3,  §  2-4. 


44  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

were,  about  a  fire  which  should  consume  the  world/  and 
rejoicing  in  the  prospect  of  that  fiery  consummation.*  Nay, 
more,  when  Pagans  had  bewailed  the  destruction  of  the 
city  and  the  loss  of  the  ancient  monuments  of  Rome,  had 
not  these  pernicious  people  used  ambiguous  language,  as 
though  they  joyously  recognised  in  these  events  the  signs 
of  a  coming  end  ?  Even  when  they  tried  to  suppress  all 
outward  tokens  of  exultation,  had  they  not  listened  to  the 
fears  and  lamentations  of  their  fellow-citizens  with  some 
sparkle  in  the  eyes,  and  had  they  not  answered  with  some- 
thing of  triumph  in  their  tones  ?  There  was  a  Satanic 
plausibility  which  dictated  the  selection  of  these  particular 
victims.  Because  they  hated  the  wickedness  of  the  w^orld, 
with  its  ruthless  games  and  hideous  idolatries,  they  were 
accused  of  hatred  of  the  whole  human  race.^  The  charge 
of  incivisme,  so  fatal  in  this  Reign  of  Terror,  was  sufficient 
to  ruin  a  body  of  men  who  scorned  the  sacrifices  of  heathen- 
dom, and  turned  away  with  abhorrence  from  its  banquets 
and  gaieties."  The  cultivated  classes  looked  down  upon 
the  Christians  with  a  disdain  which  would  hardly  even 
mention  them  without  an  apology.  The  canaille  of  Pagan 
cities  insulted  them  with  obscene  inscriptions  and  blas- 
phemous pictures  on  the  very  walls  of  the  places  wiiere 
they  met.^  Nay,  they  were  popularly  known  by  nick- 
names, like  Sarmenticii  and  Se?naxii — untranslatable  terms  of 
opprobrium  derived  from  the  fagots  with  v/hich  they  were 
burned  and  the  stakes  to  which  they  were  chained.^  Even 
the  heroic  courage  which  they  displayed  was  described 
as  being  sheer  obstinacy  and  stupid  fanaticism.'' 

But  in  the  method  chosen  for  the  punishment  of  these 
saintly  innocents  Nero  gave  one  more  proof  of  the  close 
connexion  between  effeminate  aestheticism  and  sanguinary 
callousness.     As  in  old  days,  ''on   that  opprobrious  hill," 

1  As  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  did  at  this  very  time,  i  Pet.  iv.  17  ;  Rev.  xviii.  8.  Comp.  2 
Pet.  ill.  10-12  ;  2  Thess.  i.  8. 

;  St.  Peter— apparently  thinking  of  the  fire  at  Rome  and  its  consequences— calls  ^e  perse- 
cution from  which  the  Christians  were  suffering  when  he  wrote  his  First  Epistle  a  nrvpoxris,  or 
"conflagration."     i  Pet.  iv.  12.     Comp.  i  Pet.  i.  7;  Heb.  x.  27.  , 

3  Tac.  Ann.  xv.  44 :  Hist.  v.  5  ;  Suet.  Ner.  16. 

*  The  tracts  of  Tertullian  Z><r  CoronA  Militis  are  the  best  commentary  on  these  sentences. 

^  Tertullian  mentions  one  of  these  coarse  caricatures — a  figure  with  one  foot  hoofed,  wear- 
ing a  toga,  carrying  a  book,  and  with  long  ass's  ears,  under  which  was  written,  "The  God  of 
the  Ciiristians,  Onokoites."  He  says  that  Christians  were  actually  charged  with  worshipping 
the  head  of  an  ass  {Apol.  16  ;  ad  Nntt.  i.  16).  The  same  preposterous  calumny,  with  many 
other.s,  is  alluded  to  by  Minucius  Felix,  Octav.  i.  9  :  "Audio  cos  turpissimae  pecudis  caput 
asini  .  .  .  venerari."  The  Christians  were  hence  called  Asinarii.  Analogous  calumnies 
were  aimed  at  the  Jews.     Tac.  Hist.  v.  4  ;  Plut.  Syntp.  iv.  5.  §  2  ;  Jos.  c.  Apion.  ii.  7. 

«  Tert.  Apol.  14. 

'  Epictetus,  Dissert,  iv.  7,  §  6  ;    Marc.  Aurelius,  xi.  3   v/.iArj  Trapdrofts. 


THE   FIRST   PERSECUTION.  45 

the  temple  of  Chemosh  liad  stood  close  by  that  of  Moloch, 
so  now  we  find  the  spoliariiim  beside  X\\q  fornices — Lust  hard 
by  Hate.  The  carnificina  of  Tiberius,  at  Capreae,  adjoined 
the  sdlariae.  History  hits  given  many  proofs  that  no  man 
is  more  systematically  heartless  than  a  corrupted  debauchee. 
Like  people,  like  prince.  In  the  then  condition  of  Rome, 
Nero  well  knew  that  a  nation,  '*•  cruel,  by  their  sports  to 
blood  inured,"  would  be  most  likely  to  forget  their  miseries, 
and  condone  their  suspicions,  by  mixing  games  and  gaiety 
with  spectacles  of  refined  and  atrocious  cruelty,  of  which, 
for  eighteen  centuries,  the  most  passing  record  has  sufficed 
to  make  men's  blood  run  cold. 

Tacitus  tells  us  that  "those  who  confessed  were  first 
seized,  and  then  on  their  evidence  a  huge  vmltitude^  were 
convicted,  not  so  much  on  the  charge  of  incendiarism  as  for 
their  hatred  to  mankind."  Compressed  and  obscure  as  the 
sentence  is,  Tacitus  clearly  means  to  imply  by  the  ''con- 
fession "  to  which  he  alludes  the  confession  of  Christianity  ; 
and  though  he  is  not  sufficiently  generous  to  acquit  the 
Christians  absolutely  of  all  complicity  in  the  great  crime, 
he  distinctly  says  that  they  were  made  the  scapegoats  of  a 
general  indignation.  The  phrase—''  a  huge  multitude  " — is 
one  of  the  few  existing  indications  of  the  number  of  martyrs 
in  the  first  persecution,  and  of  the  number  of  Christians  in 
the  Roman  Church.'  When  the  historian  says  that  they 
were  convicted  on  the  charge  of  "hatred  against  man- 
kind" he  shows  how  completely  he  confounds  them  with 
the  Jews,  against  whom  he  elsewhere  brings  the  accusation 
of  "  hostile  feelings  toward  all  except  themselves." 

Then  the  historian  adds  one  casual  but  frightful  sentence 
— a  sentence  which  flings  a  dreadful  light  on  the  cruelty 
of  Nero  and  the  Roman  mob.  He  adds,  "And  various 
forms  of  mockery  were  added  to  enhance  their  dying 
agonies.  Covered  with  the  skins  of  Avild  beasts,  they  were 
doomed  to  die  by  the  mangling  of  dogs,  or  by  being  nailed 
to  crosses  ;  or  to  be  set  on  fire  and  burnt  after  twilight  by 
way  of  nightly  illumination.  Nero  offered  his  own  garden 
for  this  show,  and  gave  a  chariot   race,  mingling  with  the 

^  '•'■  IngeHS  multitudo.''''  The  phrase  is  identical  with  the  ttoAu  irA^flos  of  Clemens  Ro- 
manus  {Rp.  ad  Cor.  i,  6),  and  the  oxAos  ttoAiis  of  Rev.  vii.  9,  xix.  i,  6.  Tertullian  says  that 
"  Nero  was  the  first  who  raged  with  the  sword  of  Caes;ir  against  this  sect,  which  was  then 
specially  rising  at  Rome"  (/3/^/.  5). 

2  Compare  Oros.  Hist.  vii.  7,  "  (Nero)  primus  Romae  Christianos  supplicus  et  mortibus 
affecit  ac/^^^w«£'j/r^z/i«ri'^i' pari  persecutione  excruciari  imperavit :  ipsum  nomen  exstir* 
pare  conatus  beatissimos  Christi  apostolos  Petrum  cruce,  Paulum  gladio  occidit." 


46  THE    EARLV   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

mob  in  the  dress  of  a  charioteer,  or  actually  driving  about 
among  theiA.  Hence,  guilty  as  the  victims  were,  and  de- 
serving of  the  worst  punishments,  a  feeling  of  compassion 
towards  them  began  to  rise,  as  ^iien  felt  that  they  were 
being  immolated  not  for  any  advantage  to  the  common- 
wealth, but  to  glut  the  savagery  of  a  single  man."  ^ 

Imagine  that  awful  scene,  once  witnessed  by  the  silent 
obelisk  in  the  square  before  St.  Peter's  at  Rome  !  Imagine 
it,  that  we  may  realise  how  vast  is  the  change  which 
Christianity  has  wrought  in  the  feelings  of  mankind  ! 
There,  where  the  vast  dome  noAV  rises,  w^ere  once  the 
gardens  of  Nero.  They  were  thronged  with  gay  crowds, 
among  whom  the  Emperor  moved  in  his  frivolous  degrada- 
tion— and  on  every  side  were  men  dying  slowly  on  their 
cross  of  shame.  Along  the  paths  of  those  gardens  on  the 
autumn  nights  were  ghastly  torches,  blackening  the  ground 
beneath  them  with  streams  of  sulphurous  pitch,  and  each  of 
those  living  torches  was  a  martyr  in  his  shirt  of  fire."  And 
in  the  amphitheatre  hard  by,  in  sight  of  twenty  thousand 
spectators,  famished  dogs  were  tearing  to  pieces  some  of 
the  best  and  purest  of  men  and  women,  hideously  disguised 
in  the  skins  of  bears  or  wolves.  Thus  did  Nero  baptise  in 
the  blood  of  martyrs  the  city  which  was  to  be  for  ages  the 
capital  of  the  world  ! 

The  specific  atrocity  of  such  spectacles — unknown  to 
the  earlier  ages  which  they  called  barbarous — was  due  to 
the  cold-blooded  selfishness,  the  hideous  realism  of  a  refined, 
delicate,  aesthetic  age.  To  please  these  "lisping  hawthorn- 
buds,"  these  debauched  and  sanguinary  dandies,  Art,  for- 
sooth, must  know  nothing  of  morality ;  must  accept  and  re- 
joice in  a  ''healthy  animalism  ";  must  estimate  life  by  the 
number  of  its  few  wildest  pulsations  ;  must  reckon  that  life 
is  worthless  without  the  most  thrilling  experiences  of  horror 
or  delight !  Comedy  must  be  actual  shame,  and  tragedy 
genuine  bloodshed.^  When  the  play  of  Afranius  called 
''  The  Conflagration"  was  put  on  the  stage,  a  house  must  be 
really  burnt,  and  its  furniture  really  plundered.''  In  the 
mime  called-"  Laureolus,"  an  actor  must  really  be  crucified 


1  Hence  the  expressions  "  quaesltissimae  poenae"  and  "  crudelissimae  quaestiones" 
(Sulp.  Sev.  Hist.  ii.  96). 

2  Sec,  on  this  tunica  molesta,  Lucr.  iii.  1,017:  Juv.  viii.  235,  i.  155,  et  ihi  Schol.  Sen. 
Ep.  xiv.  5,  "  Illam  tunicam  ahmentis  ignium  ct  illitam  et  textam."  Mart.  Spectac.  EJ>.  v., 
X.  25;  Apul.  iii.  9,  X.  10;  Tert.  Apol.  15,  50  (sarmenticii  .  .  .  semaxii)  ;  ad  Mart.  5;  ad 
Scab.  4;  ad  Mat.  \.  18,  '"'•  incendiati  tunica.''''     Friedlander,  Sittengesch.  Routs.,  ii.  386. 

3  Champagny,  Les  Cisars^  iv.  159.  ••  Suet.  Calig.  57. 


THE    FIRST   PERSECUTION.  47 

and  mangled  by  a  bear,  and  really  fling  himself  down  and 
deluge  the  stage  with  blood.  ^  When  the  heroism  of  Mucius 
Scaevola  was  represented,  a  real  criminal^  must  thrust  his 
hand  without  a  groan  into  the  flame,  and  stand  motionless 
Avhile  it  is  being  burnt.  Prometheus  must  be  really  chained 
to  his  rock,  and  Dirce  in  very  fact  be  tossed  and  gored  by 
the  wild  bull  f  and  Orpheus  be  torn  to  pieces  by  a  real 
bear;  and  Icarus  must  really  fly,  even  though  he  fall  and 
be  dashed  to  death  ;  and  Hercules  must  ascend  the  funeral 
pyre,  and  there  be  veritably  burnt  alive  ;  and  slaves  and 
criminals  m\ist  play  their  parts  heroically  in  gold  and  purple 
till  the  flames  envelope  them.  It  was  the  ultimate  romance 
of  a  degraded  and  brutalised  society.  The  Roman  people, 
"victors  once,  now  vile  and  base,"  could  now  only  be  amused 
by  sanguinary  melodrama.  Fables  must  be  made  realities, 
and  the  criminal  must  gracefully  transform  his  supreme 
agonies  into  amusements  for  the  multitude  by  becoming  a 
gladiator  or  a  tragedian.  Such  were  the  spectacles  at  which 
Nero  loved  to  gaze  through  his  emerald  eye-glass.*  And 
worse  things  than  these — things  indescribable,  unutterable. 
Infamous  mythologies  were  enacted,  in  which  women  must 
play  their  part  in  torments  of  shamefulness  more  intolerable 
than  death.  A  St.  Peter  must  hang  upon  the  cross  in  the 
Pincian  gardens,  as  a  real  Laureolus  upon  the  stage.  A 
Christian  boy  must  be  the  Icarus,  and  a  Christian  man  the 
Scaevola,  or  the  Hercules,  or  the  Orpheus  of  the  amphi- 
theatre ;  and  Christian  women,  modest  maidens,  holy  ma- 
trons, must  be  the  Danaids,''  or  the  Proserpine,  or  worse, 
and  play  their  parts  as  priestesses  of  Saturn  and  Ceres,  and 
in  blood-stained  dramas  of  the  dead.  No  wonder  that  Nero 
became  to  Christian  imagination  the  very  incarnation  of 
evil ;  the  Antichrist ;   the  Wild   Beast  from  the  abyss ;  the 

'  Jiiv.  Saf.  viii.  187,  "  Laureolum  z^^/,?^  etiam  bene  Lentulus  egit,"  the  actor  "was  nnable 
io  fly  over  the  cross."  Mart  Sfiectac.  vii.,  "  Nuda  Caledonio  sic  pectora  praebuit  urso. 
Non  falsa  pendens  in  cruce  Laureolus  Vivebant  laceri  membris  stillantibus  artus.  ...  In 
quo  quae fuerat /(ibula^  poeiia/uit.^^  See  Suet.  Caius.  57.  Josephus  {Antt.  xix.  1,  §  3) 
alludes  to  this  terrible  incident,  and  so  does  Tertullian  in  an  obscure  but  remarkable  passage, 
adv.  Vale7it.  14,  "nee  habens  supervolare  crucem  ,  .  .  quia  nullum  Catulli  Laureolum 
fuerit  exercitata." 

2  Mart.  vii.  8,  21,  viii.  30,  x.  25  ;  cf.  dearpL^ofievoi,  Heb.  x.  33. 

3  The  Toro  Fam^se  had  been  brought  to  Rome  from  Rhodes  in  the  days  of  Augustus,  and 
may  have  set  the  fashion  for  this  tableau  vivant  (Plin.  xxxvi.  5,  6;  Apul.  Metatn.  vi.  127  ; 
Lucian,  Lucius,  23  ;^Renan,  UAniechrist,  171  ;  Tert.  Af>ol.  15  ;  Plut.  De  Sera  Num.  Vind. 
p  :  TTup  (ii'ieiTes  €/c  t^s  a.vQiVT^<i  eKeiyiqi;  koX  TToAuTeAoGs  eff^JjTOs;  Schlegel,  Philos.  d.  Gesch.  I, 
IX.,  p.  332. 

*  '•  Spectabat  smaragdo  "  (Plin.  //.  N.  xxxvii.  57). 

^  S.  Clem,  ad  Cor.  i.  6,  Sta  ^\<ov  hitaxB^lao-K  yvvaiKeg  AavatSe?  Kai  AipKai  aiKianara. 
t€Lva  KOI  av6<Tia  iradovvai  enl  tov  ttjs  iriffTews  /Be'^aioi'  SpOfiOi'  (caT^i'TTjo-ai'  Kai  iKa^ov  yipa<i 
•^ivvaiiov  ai  aaflevel?  rep  (roifxaTt. 


48  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

delegate  of  the  great  red  Dragon,  with  a  diadem  and  a  name 
of  blasphemy  upon  his  brow/  No  wonder  that  he  left  a 
furrow  of  horror  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  that,  ten  centu- 
ries after  his  death,  the  church  of  Sta.  Maria  del  Popolo  had 
to  be  built  by  Pope  Pascal  II.  to  exorcise  from  Christian 
Rome  his  restless  and  miserable  ghost ! 

And  it  struck  them  with  deeper  horror  to  see  that  the 
Antichrist, "so  far  from  being  abhorred,  was  generally  pop- 
ular. He  was  popular  because  he  presented  to  the  degraded 
populace  their  own  image  and  similitude.  The  froglike 
unclean  spirits  which  proceeded,  as  it  were,  out  of  his 
mouth*  were  potent  with  these  dwellers  in  an  atmosphere  of 
pestilence.  They  had  lost  all  love  for  freedom  and  noble- 
ness ;  they  cared  only  for  doles  and  excitement.  Even  when 
the  infamies  of  a  Petronius  had  been  superseded  by  the 
murderous  orgies  of  Tigellinus,  Nero  was  still  everywhere 
welcomed  with  shouts  as  a  god  on  earth,  and  saluted  on 
coins  as  Apollo,  as  Hercules,  as  '^  The  Saviour  of  the 
World  "  ^  The  poets  still  assured  him  that  there  was  no 
deity  in  heaven  who  w^ould  not  think  it  an  honour  to  con- 
cede to  him  his  prerogatives  ;  that  if  he  did  not  place  him- 
self well  in  the  centre  of  Olympus,  the  equilibrium  of  the 
universe  would  be  destroyed.*  Victims  were  slain  along 
his  path,  and  altars  raised  for  him — for  this  wretch,  whom 
an  honest  slave  could  not  but  despise  and  loathe — as  though 
he  was  too  great  for  mere  human  honours. '^  Nay,  more,  he 
found  adorers  and  imitators  of  his  execrable  example — an 
Otho,  a  Vitellius,  a  Domitian,  a  Commodus,  a  Caracalla,  an 
Heliogabalus — to  poison  the  air  of  the  world.  The  lusts 
and  hungers  and  furies  of  the  world  lamented  him,  and 
cherished  his  memory,  and  longed  for  his  return. 

And  yet,  though  all  bad  men — who  were  the  majority — 
admired  and  even  loved  him,  he  died  the  death  of  a  dog. 
Tremendous  as  was  the  power  of  Imperialism,  the  Romans 
often  treated  their  individual  Emperors  as  Nero  himself 
treated  the  Syrian  goddess,  whose  image  he  first  worshipped 
with  awful  veneration  and  then  subjected  to  the  most  gro- 
tesque indignities.  For  retribution  did  not  linger,  and  the 
vengeance  fell  at  once  on  the  guilty  Emperor  and  the  guilty 
city. 


•  2  Thess.  ii.  3  ;  Rev.  xi.  7,  xii.  3,  xiii.i,  6j  xvi.  13,  xvii.  8,  11. 

*  Rev.  xvi.  13.  3  Tu>  ^larript.  njs  otfcovjoieVrj?.  *  Luc.  Phars.  vii. 
^  Tac.  Ann.  xv.  74,  "Tamquani  moriale  fastigiuni  egresso." 


THE   FIRST   PERSECUTION.  49 

*'  Careless  seems  the  Great  Avenger :  History's  pages  but  record 
One  death-grapple  m  the  darkness  'twixt  false  systems  and  the  Word  ; 
»  Truth  forever  on  the  scaffold,  wrong  forever  on  the  throne. 

Yet  that  scaftbld  sways  the  future,  and  behind  the  dim  unknown 
Standeth  God  within  the  shadow,  keeping  watch  above  His  own." 

The  air  was  full  of  prodigies.  There  were  terrible 
storms ;  the  plague  wrought  fearful  ravages.'  Rumours 
spread  from  lip  to  lip.  Men  spoke  of  monstrous  births  ;  of 
deaths  by  lightning  under  strange  circumstances  ;  of  a 
brazen  statue  of  Nero  melted  by  the  flash  ;  of  places  struck 
by  the  brand  of  heaven  in  fourteen  regions  of  the  city  ;^  of 
sudden  darkenings  of  the  sun.^  A  Imrricane  devasted  Cam- 
pania ;  Comets  blazed  in  the  heavens  ;*  earthquakes  shook 
the  ground.^  On  all  sides  were  the  traces  of  deep  uneasi- 
ness and  superstitious  terror. °  To  all  these  portents,  which 
were  accepted  as  true  by  Christians  as  w^ell  as  by  Pagans, 
the  Christians  would  give  a  specially  terrible  significance. 
They  strengthened  their  conviction  that  the  coming  of  the 
Lord  drew  nigh.  They  convinced  the  better  sort  of  Pagans 
that  the  hour  of  their  deliverance  from  a  tyranny  so  mon- 
strous and  so  disgraceful  was  near  at  hand. 

In  spite  of  the  shocking  servility  with  which  alike  the 
Senate  and  the  people  had  welcomed  him  back  to  the  city 
with  shouts  of  triumph,  Nero  felt  that  the  air  of  Rome  was 
heavy  with  curses  against  his  name.  He  w^ithdrew  to 
Naples,  and  was  at  supper  there  on  Mqjrch  19,  a.d.  d'^^  the 
anniversary  of  his  mother's  murder,  when  he  heard  that  the 
first  note  of  revolt  had  been  sounded  by  the  brave  C.  Julius 
Vindex,  Praefect  of  Farther  Gaul.  He  was  so  far  from  be- 
ing disturbed  by  the  news,  that  he  show^ed  a  secret  joy  at 
the  thought  that  he  could  now  order  Gaul  to  be  plundered. 
For  eight  days  he  took  no  notice  of  the  matter.  He  w^as 
only  roused  to  send  an  address  to  the  Senate  because  Vin- 
dex wounded  his  vanity  by  calling  him  "  Ahenobarbus," 
and  "  a  bad  singer."  But  w4ien  messenger  after  messenger 
came  from  the  provinces  with  tidings  of  menace,  he  hurried 
back  to  Rome.  At  last,  when  he  heard  that  Virginius  Rufus 
had  also  rebelled  in  Germany,  and  Galba  in  Spain,  he  be- 
came aware  of  the  desperate  nature  of  his  position.     On  re- 


1  Tac.  ^««.  xvi.  13,  "Tot  facinoribus  foedum  annum  etiam  dii  tempestatibus  et  morbis 
insignivere,"  etc.  ;  Oros.  Hist.  vii.  7,  "  Mox  (after  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul)  acer- 
vatim  miseram  civitatem  obortae  undique  oppressere  clades.  _  Nam  subsequente  auctumno 
tanta  Urbi  pestilentia  incubuit,  ut  triginta  millia  fimerum  in  rationem  Libitinae  venirent." 

2Tac.  Hist.  i.  4,  11,  78,  ii.  8,  95  ;  Suet.  Ner.  57;  Otho,  7;  Plut.  De Serci  Num.  Find.; 
Pau'-an.  vii.  17;  Xiphilin,  Ixiv ;   Dion  Chrysost.  Orat.  xxi. 

8  Tac.  Ann.  xiv.  12.  *  Tac  Ann.  xiv.  22,  xv.  47;  Sen.  Qu.  Nat.  vii.  17,  21. 

*  Tac.  Ann.  xv.  22.  *  Suet.  Ner.  36,  39;  Dion  Cass.  Ixi.  16.  i5. 


50  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

ceiving  this  intelligence  he  fainted  away,  and  remained  for 
some  time  unconscious.  He  continued,  indeed,  his  gros§- 
ness  and  frivolity,  but  the  wildest  and  fiercest  schemes 
chased  each  other  through  his  melodramatic  brain.  He 
would  slay  all  the  exiles  ;  he  would  give  up  all  the  pro- 
vinces to  plunder  ;  he  would  orcfer  all  the  Gauls  in  the  city 
to  be  butchered  ;  he  would  have  all  the  Senators  invited 
to  banquets,  and  would  then  poison  them  ;  he  would  have 
the  city  set  on  lire,  and  the  w41d  beasts  of  the  amphitheatre 
let  loose  among  the  people  ;  he  would  depose  both  the 
Consuls,  and  become  sole  Consul  himself,  since  legend  said 
that  only  by  a  Consul  could  Gauls  be  conquered  ;  he  would 
go  with  an  army  to  the  province,  and  when  he  got  there 
would  do  nothing  but  weep,  and  when  he  had  thus  moved 
the  rebels  to  compassion,  would  next  day  sing  with  them  at 
a  great  festival  the  ode  of  victory  which  he  must  at  once 
compose.  Not  a  single  manly  resolution  lent  a  moment's 
dignity  to  his  miserable  fall.  Sometimes  he  talked  of 
escaping  to  Ostia,  and  arming  the  sailors  ;  at  others,  of 
escaping  to  Alexandria,  and  earning  his  bread  by  his 
*'  divine  voice."  Meanwhile  he  was  hourly  subjected  to  the 
deadliest  insults,  and  terrified  by  dreams  and  omens  so  som- 
bre that  his  faith  in  the  astrologers  who  had  promised  him 
the  goverjiment  of  the  East  and  the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem 
began  to  be  rudely  shaken.  When  he  heard  that  not  a 
single  army  or  general  remained  faithful  to  him,  he  kicked 
over  the  table  at  which  he  was  dining,  dashed  to  pieces  on 
the  ground  two  favourite  goblets  embossed  with  scenes 
from  the  Homeric  poems,  and  placed  in  a  golden  box  some 
poison  furnished  to  him  by  Locusta.  The  last  effort  which 
he  contemplated  was  to  mount  the  Rostra,  beg  pardon  of 
the  people  for  his  crimes,  ask  them  to  try  him  again,  and, 
at  the  worst,  to  allow  him  the  Praefecture  of  Egypt.  But 
this  design  he  did  not  dare  to  carry  out,  from  fear  that  he 
would  be  torn  to  pieces  before  he  reached  the  Forum. 
Meanwhile  he  found  that  the  palace  had  been  deserted  by 
his  guards,  and  that  his  attendants  had  robbed  his  chamber 
even  of  the  golden  box  in  which  he  had  stored  his  poison. 
Rushing  out,  as  though  to  drown  himself  in  the  Tiber,  he 
changed  his  mind,  and  begged  for  seme  quiet  hiding-place 
in  which  to  collect  his  thoughts.  The  freedman  Phaon 
offered  him  a  lowly  villa  about  four  miles  from  the  city. 
Barefooted,  and  with  a  faded  coat  tlirown  over  his  tunic,  he 
hid  his   liead   and  face    in   a  kerchief,  and   rode  awav  with 


THE   FIRST   PERSECUTION.  5  I 

only  four  attendants.  On  the  road,  he  heard  the  tumuit  of 
the  Prcctorians  cursing  his  name.  Amid  evil  omens  and 
serious  perils  he  reached  the  back  of  Phaon's  villa,  and 
creeping  towards  it  through  a  muddy  reed-bed,  was  secretly 
admitted  into  one  of  its  mean  slave-chambers  by  an  aperture 
through  which  he  had  to  crawl  on  his  hands  and  feet. 

There  is  no  need  to  dwell  on  the  miserable  spectacle  of 
his  end,  perhaps  the  meanest  and  most  pusillanimous  which 
has  ever  been  recorded.  The  poor  wretch  who,  without  a 
pang,  had  caused  so  many  brave  Romans  and  so  many  inno- 
cent Christians  to  be  murdered,  could  not  summon  up  re- 
solution to  die.  He  devised  every  operatic  incident  of 
which  he  could  think.  When  even  his  most  degraded 
slaves  urged  him  to  have  sufficient  manliness  to  save  himself 
from  the  fearful  infamies  which  otherwise  awaited  him,  he 
ordered  his  grave  to  be  dug,  and  fragments  of  marble  to  be 
collected  for  its  adornment,  and  water  and  wood  for  his 
funeral  pyre,  perpetually  whining,  ''  What  an  artist  to 
perish  ! "  Meanwhile  a  courier  arrived  for  Phaon.  Nero 
snatched  his  despatches  out  of  his  hand,  and  read  that  the 
Senate  had  decided  that  he  should  be  punished  in  the  ances- 
tral fashion  as  a  public  enemy.  Asking  what  the  ancestral 
fashion  was,  he  was  informed  that  he  would  be  stripped 
naked  and  scourged  to  death  w^th  rods,  with  his  head  thrust 
into  a  fork.  Horrified  at  this,  he  seized  two  daggers,  and 
after  theatrically  trying  their  edges,  sheathed  them  again, 
with  the  excuse  that  the  fatal  moment  had  not  yet  arrived  ! 
Then  he  bade  Sporus  begin  to  sing  his  funeral  song,  and 
begged  some  one  to  show  him  how  to  die.  Even  his  own 
intense  shame  at  his  cowardice  was  an  insufficient  stimulus, 
and  he  wiled  away  the  time  in  vapid  epigrams  and  pompous 
quotations.  The  sound  of  horses'  hoofs  then  broke  on  his 
ears,  and,  venting  one  more  Greek  quotation,  he  held  the 
dagger  to  his  throat.  It  w^as  driven  home  by  Epaphroditus, 
one  of  his  literary  slaves.  At  this  moment  the  centurion 
who  came  to  arrest  him  rushed  in.  Nero  was  not  yet  dead, 
and  under  pretence  of  helping  him,  the  centurion  began  to 
stanch  the  wound  with  his  cloak.  ''  Too  late,"  he  said  ;  ''  is 
this  your  fidelity  ? "  So  he  died  ;  and  the  bystanders  were 
horrified  w4th  the  way  in  which  his  eyes  seemed  to  be  start- 
ing out  of  his  head  in  a  rigid  stare.  He  had  begged  that 
his  body  might  be  burned  Avithout  posthumous  insults,  and 
this  was  conceded  by  Icelus,  the  freedman  of  Galbo. 

So  died  the  last  of  the  Caesars  !     And  as   Robespierre 


52  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

was  lamented  by  his  landlady,  so  even  Nero  was  tenderly 
buried  by  two  nurses  who  had  known  him  in  the  exquisite 
beauty  of  his  engaging  childhood,  and  by  Acte,  who  had 
inspired  his  youth  with  a  genuine  love. 

But,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  his  history  does  not  end 
with  his  grave.  He  was  to  live  on  in  the  expectation  alike 
of  Jews  and  Christians.  The  fifth  head  of  the  Wild  Beast 
of  the  Revelation  was  in  some  sort  to  re-appear  as  the 
eighth  ;  the  head  with  its  diadem  and  its  names  of 
blasphemy  had  been  w^ounded  to  death,  but  in  the 
Apocalyptic  sense  the  deadly  wound  was  to  be  healed/ 
The  Roman  world  could  not  believe  that  the  heir  of  the 
deified  Julian  race  could  be  cut  off  thus  suddenly  and 
obscurely,  and  vanish  like  foam  upon  the  water. ^  The 
Christians  felt  sure  that  it  required  something  more  than 
an  ordinary  death-stroke  to  destroy  the  Antichrist,  and  to 
end  the  vitality  of  the  Wild  Beast  from  the  Abyss,  who  had 
been  the  first  to  set  himself  in  deadly  antagonism  against 
the  Redeemer,  and  to  wage  war  upon  the  saints  of  God. 

1  Rev.  xiii.  3,  xvii.  ii.  8  Hos.  x.  7. 


ST.  PETER  AND  THE  CHURCH  CATHOLIC. 


CHAPTER    V. 

WRITINGS   OF    THE   APOSTLES   AND    EARLY    CHRISTIANS. 

'AAteD  ixeponuiv 

IleAayov?  /ca/ct'aj 

KujuaTo?  e\9pov 
TkvKepfj  ^iiif)  SeAea^oij'. 

— Clem.  Alex.  Paed.  iii.  ad  Jin, 

When  we  turn  from  the  annals  of  the  world  at  this  epoch 
to  the  annals  of  the  Church,  we  pass  at  once  from  an 
atmosphere  heavy  with  misery  and  corruption  into  pure  and 
pellucid  air.  We  have  been  reading  the  account  given  us 
by  secular  literature  of  the  world  in  its  relations  to  the 
Church.  In  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  we  shall  read 
directions  which  were  written  to  guide  the  Church  in  its 
relations  to  the  world.  We  have  been  reading  what  Pa- 
gans said  and  thought  of  Christians  ;  in  the  writings  of 
Christians  addressed  to  each  other,  and  meant  for  no  other 
eye,  we  shall  see  what  these  hated,  slandered,  persecuted 
Christians  really  were.  In  place  of  the  turbulence  laid  to 
their  charge,  we  shall  have  proofs  of  the  humility  and 
cheerfulness  of  their  submission.  We  shall  see  that,  so  far 
from  being  resentful,  they  were  taught  unlimited  forgive- 
ness ;  and  that,  instead  of  cherishing  a  fierce  hatred  against 
all  mankind,  they  made  it  their  chief  virtue  to  cultivate  an 
universal  love. 

But  although  we  are  so  fully  acquainted  with  the 
thoughts  and  feeHngs  of  the  early  Christians,  yet  the  facts 
of  ^  their  corporate  history  during  the  last  decades  of  the 
first  century,  and  even  the  closing  details  in  the  biographies 
of  their  very  greatest  teachers  are  plunged   in  entire  un- 


54  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

certainty.  When,  with  the  last  word  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  we  lose  the  graphic  and  faithful  guidance  of 
St.  Luke,  the  torch  of  Christian  history  is  for  a  time  ab- 
ruptly quenched.  We  are  left,  as  it  were,  to  grope  amid 
the  windings  of  the  catacombs.  Even  the  final  labours  of 
the  life  of  St.  Paul  are  only  so  far  known  as  we  may  dimly 
infer  them  from  the  casual  allusions  of  the  pastoral  epistles. 
For  the  details  of  many  years  in  the  life  of  St.  Peter  we 
have  nothing  on  which  to  rely  except  slight  and  vague 
allusions,  floating  rumours,  and  false  impressions  created 
by  the  deliberate  fictions  of  heretical  romance. 

It  is  probable  that  this  silence  is  in  itself  the  result  of 
the  terrible  scenes  in  which  the  Apostles  perished.  It  was 
indispensable  to  the  safety  of  the  whole  community  that  the 
books  of  the  Christians,  when  given  up  by  the  unhappy 
weakness  of  '^  traditors  "  or  discovered  by  the  keen  malignity 
of  informers,  should  contain  no  compromising  matter. 
But  how  would  it  have  been  possible  for  St.  Luke  to  write 
in  a  manner  otherwise  than  compromising  if  he  had  de- 
tailed the  horrors  of  the  Neronian  persecution  ?  It  is  a 
reasonable  conjecture  that  the  sudden  close  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  may  have  been  due  to  the  impossibility  of 
speaking  without  indignation  and  abhorrence  of  the  Em- 
peror and  the  Government  which,  between  a.d.  64  and 
68,  sanctioned  the  infliction  upon  innocent  men  and  women 
of  atrocities  which  excited  the  pity  of  the  very  Pagans. 
The  Jew  and  the  Christian  who  entered  on  such  themes 
could  only  do  so  under  the  disguise  of  a  cryptograph, 
hiding  his  meaning  from  all  but  the  initiated  few  in  such 
prophetic  symbols  as  those  of  the  Apocalypse.  In  that 
book  alone  we  are  enabled  to  hear  the  cry  of  horror  which 
Nero's  brutal  cruelties  wrung  from  Christian  hearts. 

But  if  we  know  so  little  of  St.  Peter  that  is  in  the  least 
trustworthy,  it  is  hardly  strange  that  of  the  other  Apostles, 
with  the  single  exception  of  St.  John,  and — in  the  wider 
sense  of  the  word  ''apostle" — of  St.  James  the  Lord's 
brother,  we  know  scarcely  anything.  To  St.  Peter,  St. 
John,  and  St.  James  the  Lord's  brother  it  was  believed  that 
Christ,  after  Ilis  resurrection,  had  "  revealed  the  true gz/osis,'' 
or  deeper  understanding  of  Christian  doctrine.'  It  is  singu- 
lar how  very  little  is  narrated  of  the  rest,  and  how  entirely 
that  little  depends  upon  loose  and  unaccredited  tradition. 

»  Clem.  Alex.  a/.  Euseb.  //.  £.  ii.  i. 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.       55 

Did  they  all  travel  as  missionaries  ?  Did  they  all  die  as 
martyrs  ?  Heracieon,  in  the  second  century,  said  that  St. 
Matthias,  St.  Thomas,  St.  Philip,  and  St.  Matthew  died  nat- 
ural deaths,  and  St.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  quotes  him  with- 
out contradiction.'  The  only  death  of  an  Apostle  narrated 
in  the  New  Testament  is  narrated  in  two  words,  avdXc  jxaxaupa 
— "slew  with  the  sword."  It  is  the  martyrdom  of  St.  James 
the  Elder,  the  son  of  Zebedee."  Of  St.  P^hilip  we  know 
with  reasonable  certainty  that  he  lived  for  many  years  as 
bishop,  and  died  in  great  honour  at  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia. 
Eusebius  makes  express  mention  of  his  daughters,  of  whom 
two  were  virgins,  and  one  was  married  and  buried  at  Ephe- 
sus.  It  cannot  be  regarded  as  certain  that  there  has  not 
been  some  confusion  between  Philip  the  Apostle  and  Philip 
the  Deacon  ;  but  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not 
both  have  had  virgin  daughters,  and  Polycratcs  expressly 
says  that  the  Philip  who  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  great 
*4ights  of  Asia"  was  one  of  the  Twelve.^  If  we  ask  about 
the  rest  of  our  Lord's  chosen  Twelve,  all  that  we  are  told  is 
of  a  most  meagre  and  most  uncertain  character.  The  first 
fact  stated  about  them  is  that  they  did  not  separate  for 
twelve  years,  because  they  had  been  bidden  by  Christ  in  His 
parting  words  to  stay  for  that  period  in  Jerusalem.  Accord- 
ingly we  find  that  up  to  that  time  St.  Paul  is  the  only 
Apostle  of  whose  missionary  journeys  beyond  the  limits  of 
Palestine  we  have  any  evidence,  whereas  after  that  time  we 
find  James  the  Lord's  brother  alone  at  Jerusalem  as  the  per- 
manent overseer  of  the  Mother-Church. 

We  are  told  that,  after  the  Ascension,  the  Apostles  di- 
vided the  world  among  themselves  by  lot  for  the  purpose  of 
evangelisation,"  and  in  the  fourth  century  there  was  a  prev- 
alent belief  that  they  had  all  been  martyred  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  excepting  John.  This,  however,  can 
have  only  been  an  a  priori  conjecture,  and  there  is  no  evi- 
dence which  can  be  adduced  in  its  support. 

The  sum  total,  then,  of  what  tradition  asserts  about  these 
Apostles,  omitting  the  worst  absurdities  and  the  legendary 
miracles,  is  as  foUow^s  : — 

1  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  4.     See  Dollinger,  First  Age  o/the  Churchy  p.  137. 

2  He  became  the  Patron  Saint  of  Spain  from  the  legends  about  the  removal  of  his  body  to 
Iria  Flavia.  Compostella  is  said  to  be  a  corruption  of  Giacomo  Postolo  (Voss).  See  Cave, 
Lives  oftJie  Apostles,  p.  150.  The  Hollandists  still  retain  the  legend  first  mentioned  by  Wal, 
Strabo  {Proevt.  de  XII.  Apost.)  that  he  was  martyred  there. 

^  Clem.  Alex.  Strotn.  iii.,  p.  448  ;  Polycr.  np.  Euseb.  iii.  31  ;  Dorotheus,  De  Vit.  et  Mart. 
Apost.  ;  Isidor.  Pelus.  Epp.  i.  447,  etc.     Metaphrastes  and  Nicephorus  add  various  fables. 
*  Socrates,  H.  K.  i.  19. 


56  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

St,  Andrew,  determining  to  convert  the  Scythians,'  vis- 
ited on  the  way  Amynsus,  Trapezus,  Heraclea,  and  Sinope. 
After  being  nearly  killed  by  the  Jews  at  Sinope,  he  was 
miraculously  healed,  visited  Neo-Caesarea  and  Samosata, 
returned  to  Jerusalem,  and  thence  went  to  Byzantium, 
where  he  appointed  Stachys  to  be  a  bishop.  After  various 
other  travels  and  adventures  he  was  martyred  at  Patrae  by 
/Egeas,  Proconsul  of  Achaia,  by  being  crucified  on  the  de- 
cussate cross  now  known  as  the  cross  of  St.  Andrew.^ 

St.  Bartholomew  (Nathanael)  is  said  to  have  travelled 
to  India,  and  to  have  carried  thither  St.  Matthew's  Gospel.' 
After  preaching  in  Lycaonia  and  Armenia,  it  is  asserted 
that  he  was  either  flayed  or  crucified  head  downwards  at 
Albanopolis  in  Armenia.  The  pseudo-Dionysius  attributes 
to  him  the  remarkable  saying  that  "  Theology  is  both  large 
and  very  small,  and  the  Gospel  broad  and  great,  and  also 
compressed."* 

St.  Matthew  is  said  to  have  preached  in  Parthia  and 
.Ethiopia,  and  to  have  been  martyred  at  Naddaber  in  the 
latter  country."  According  to  St.  Clemens,  he  lived  only  on 
herbs,"  practising  a  mode  of  life  which  was  Essene  in  its 
simplicity  and  self-denial. 

St.  Thomas  is  called  the  Apostle  of  India,  and  is  said  to 
have  founded  the  Christian  communities  in  India  who  still 
call  themselves  by  his  name.  But  this  seems  to  be  a  mis- 
take. Theodoret  says  that  the  Thomas  who  established 
these  churches  was  a  Manichee,  and  the  ''Acts  of  Thomas  " 
are  Manichean  in  tendency.  Origen  says  that  the  Apostle 
preached  in  Parthia.^  His  grave  w^as  shown  at  Edessa  in 
the  fourth  century.® 

St.  James  the  Less,  the  son  of  Alphasus,  who  is  distin- 
guished by  the  Greek  Church  from  James  the  Lord's 
brother,  is  said  to  have  been  crucified  while  preaching  at 
Ostrakine  in  Lower  Egypt.'* 

St.  Simon  Zelotes  is  variously  conjectured  to  have 
preached  and  to  have  been  crucified  at  Babylonia  or  in  the 
British  Isles.  ^^ 


1  Origen  np.  Euseb.  iii.  i. 

2  See  PLuseb.  //.  E.  iii.  i  ;  Nicephorus,  H.  E.  ii.  39.  In  Hesychius  a/>.  Photium,  Cod. 
269,  is  first  found  his  address  to  his  cross.  'l"he  Acta  Andreae  (Tischendorf,  Act.  AJ>ocr., 
p.  105  ff.)  are  among  the  best  of  their  kind. 

'  Euseb.  V.  10  :  Sophronius  aj>.  Jer.  De  Script.  Eccl. 
*  De  Mystic.  Theol.  i.  3. 

°  Niceph.  /.  c.  :  Metaphr.  nd  Aug:  24  ;  Fortunatus,  De  Senat.  vii.  Various  fables  are 
added  in  Xiceph.  ii.  41.  8  Paedag.  ii.  i.  ^  Orig.  ap.  Euseb.  iii.  i. 

•>  Chrys.  Horn,  in  Jlebr.  xxvi.  *  Niceph.  ii.  40.  i"  Niceph.  viii.  30. 


WRnix\GS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.       5/ 

Judas,  LEBByEUS,  or  Thadd.eus,  is  said  to  have  been  de- 
spatched by  St.  Thomas  to  Abgar,  King  of  Edessa,  and  to 
hav^e  been  martyred  at  Berytus.' 

Scanty,  contradictory,  hite,  and  unauthenticated  notices, 
founded  for  the  most  part  on  invention  or  a  sense  of  eccle- 
siastical fitness,  and  recorded  chiefly  by  writers  like  Gregory 
of  Tours  late  in  the  sixth  century,  and  Nicephorus  late  in  the 
fourteenth,  are  obviously  valueless.  All  that  we  can  deduce 
from  them  is  the  belief,  of  which  we  see  glimpses  even  in 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Origen,  that  the  Apostles 
preached  far  and  wide,  and  that  more  than  one  of  them  were 
martyred.  It  would  be  strange  if  none  of  the  Twelve  met 
with  such  an  end  in  preaching  among  Pagan  and  barbarous 
nations ;  and  that  they  did  so  preach  is  rendered  likely  by 
the  extreme  antiquity  and  the  marked  Judaeo-Christian 
character  of  Churches  which  still  exist  in  Persia,  India, 
Egypt,  and  Abyssinia. 

But  in  the  silence  and  obscurity  which  thus  falls  over  the 
personal  history  and  final  fate  of  the  Twelve  whom  Christ 
chose  to  be  nearest  to  Him  on  earth,  how  invaluable  is  the 
boon  of  knowledge  respecting  the  thoughts,  and  to  some  ex; 
tent  even  the  lives,  of  such  Apostles  as  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul, 
and  St.  John,  as  Avell  as  of  St.  Jude,  and  St.  James  the 
Lord's  brother,  and  the  eloquent  writer  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  And  the  boon  is  all  the  richer  from  the 
Divine  diversity  of  thought  thus  preserved  for  us.  For 
each  of  these  Apostolic  writers,  though  they  are  one  in 
their  faith,  yet  approaches  the  hopes  and  promises  of  Chris- 
tianity from  a  different  point  of  view  ;  each  one  gives  us  a 
fresh  aspect  of  many-sided  truths. 

Let  us  imagine  what  would  have  been  our  position,  if,  in 
the  providence  of  God,  we  had  not  been  suffered  to  possess 
these  works,  of  which  the  greater  number  belong  to  the 
closing  epoch  of  the  New  Testament  Canon. 

The  New  Testament  would  then  have  consisted  exclusive- 
Iv  of  the  works  of  five  writers— the  four  Evangelists  and  St. 
Paul. 

The  Synoptists,  in  spite  of  well-marked  minor  differences 
in  their  point  of  view,  present  for  the  most  part  a  single — 
mainly  the  external  and  historical — aspect  of  the  life  of 
Christ.  We  find  in  them  a  compressed  and  fragmentary 
outline  of  the  work  of  Christ's  public  ministry,  and  even  this 


Dorotheus,  De  Vit.  Apost.  ;  Niceph.  ii.  40. 


58  THE   EARLY   D^YS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

is  almost  confined  to  details  about  one  year  of  His  work  and 
one  region  of  His  ministry/  followed  by  a  fuller  account  of 
His  Betrayal,  Passion,  Crucifixion,  and  Resurrection,  In 
the  fourth  Gospel  alone  we  have  a  sketch  of  the  Judaean 
phase  of  the  ministry,  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 
and  a  yet  deeper  insight  into  the  Nature  t^id  Mind  of 
Christ.  But,  with  this  exception,  we  should  be  left  to  St. 
Paul  alone  for  the  theological  development  and  manifold 
applications  of  Cliristian  truth.  And  yet  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  himself,  we  should 
have  found  abundant  traces  that  his  view  of  Christianity 
was  in  many  respects  independent  and  original.  Alike 
from  his  own  pages,  and  those  of  his  friend  and  historian 
St.  Luke,  we  should  have  learnt  the  existence  of  phases  of 
Christianity,  built  indeed  upon  the  same  essential  truths  as 
those  which  he  deemed  it  the  glory  of  his  life  to  preach,  but 
placing  those  truths  in  a  different  perspective,  and  regard- 
ing them  from  another  point  of  view.  We  should  have 
heard  the  echoes  of  disputes  so  vehement  and  so  agitating 
that  they  even  arrayed  the  Apostles  in  a  position  of  contro- 
versy against  one  another,  and  we  should  have  found  traces 
that  though  those  disputes  were  conducted  with  such  Chris- 
tian forbearance  on  both  sides  as  to  prevent  their  degener- 
ating into  schisms,  they  yet  continued  to  smoulder  as  ele- 
ments of  difference  between  various  schools  of  thought. 
Taking  the  Corinthian  Church  as  a  type  of  other  Churches, 
we  should  have  found  that  there  was  a  Kephas  party,  and 
an  Apollos  party,  and  a  Christ  party,  as  well  as  a  party 
which  attached  itself  to  the  name  of  Paul ;  and  even  if  we 
admitted  that  the  Corinthian  Church  was  exceptionally 
factious,  we  should  have  learnt  from  tlie  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  and  other  sources,  that  there  were  Jews  who 
called  themselves  Christians,  and  claimed  identity  with  the 
views  of  James,  by  whom  the  name  and  work  of  the  Apos- 
tle of  the  Gentiles  were  regarded  not  only  with  unsympa- 
thising  coldness,  but  with  positive  disapproval  and  dislike. 
We  should  have  felt  that  we  were  not  in  possession  of  the 
materials  for  forming  any  complete  opinion  as  to  the  char- 
acteristics of  early  Christianity.  We  should  have  longed 
for  even  a  few  words  to  inform  us  what  were  the  special 
tenets  which  differentiated  the  adherents  of  St.  James,  and 
St.  Peter,    and   St.    John,    and   Apollos   from  those  of  the 

_      »  See  the  remark  of  St.  John  "  the  Elder"  (/.<?.,  the  Apostle)  in  Papias  np.  Euseb.  //.  E. 
iii.  24. 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.       59 

Great  Missionary  wlio  in  human  erudition  and  purely  intel- 
lectual endowments,  no  less  than  in  the  vast  effects  of  his 
lifelong  martyrdom,  so  greatly  surpassed  them  all.  We 
should  have  been  ready  to  sacrifice  no  small  part  of  classical 
literature  for  the  sake  of  any  treatise,  however  brief,  which 
Avould  have  furnished  us  with  adequate  data  for  ascertaining 
the  teaching  of  Apostles  who  had  lived  familiarly  with  the 
Lord  by  the  Lake  of  Galilee;  or  of  some  other  early  con- 
verts who,  like  St.  Paul  himself,  formed  their  judgment  of 
Christianity  with  the  full  powers  of  a  cultivated  manhood. 
We  should,  indeed,  have  known  how  Christianity  was  taught 
by  one  who  had  been  living  for  years  in  Heathen  commu- 
nities, whose  Jewish  training  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel  had  been 
modified  by  his  early  days  in  learned  Tarsus,  and  still  more 
by  his  cosmopolitan  familiarity  with  the  cities  and  wavs  of 
men  ;  but  we  should  have  asked  whether  the  Faith  was 
taught  in  exactly  the  same  way — or,  if  not,  w^ith  what  modi- 
fications— by  a  Peter  and  a  John,  wdio  had  known,  as  St. 
Paul  had  never  known,  the  living  Jesus,  and  by  a  James  the 
Lord's  brother,  who  spent  so  many  years  in  the  rigid  prac- 
tice of  every  Jewish  observance.  We  should  have  been  lost 
in  vain  surmises  as  to  the  growth  of  heresies.  If  Marcion- 
ism  and  Antinomianism  sprang  from  direct  perversion  of 
the  teachings  of  St.  Paul,  what  was  the  teaching  on  which 
Nazarenes,  and  Ebionites,  and  Elchasaites,  and  Chiliasts 
professed  to  found  their  views?  In  fact,  without  the  nine 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  which  will  be  examined  in 
this  volume,  the  early  history  of  the  Church  would  have 
been  reduced  to  a  chaos  of  hopeless  luicertainties.  We 
should  have  felt  that  our  records  were  grievously  imperfect; 
that  only  in  a  unity  wherein  minor  differences  were  recon- 
ciled, without  being  obliterated — only  in  the  synthesis  of 
opinions  which  wxre  various,  w^ithout  contrariety — could 
we  form  a  full  notion  of  the  breadth  and  length,  and  depth 
and  height  of  sacred  Truth. 

Now  this  is  the  very  boon  which  the  Spirit  of  God  has 
granted  to  us.  Besides  the  four  Gospels,  besides  the  thir- 
teen Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  w^e  have  nine  books  of  the  New 
Testament  which  are  the  works  of  five  different  authors, 
and  every  one  of  these  brief  but' precious  documents  is 
marked  by  its  own  special  characteristics. 

I.  Earliest,  probably,  of  them  all  is  the  book  which  is 
unhappily  placed  last,  and  therefore  completely  out  of  its 
proper  order  in  our  New  Testaments,  The  Revelation  of 


6o  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

St.  John  the  Divine.  It  marks  the  beginning  of  the  era  of 
martyrdoms.  It  is  in  many  respects  exceptionally  precious. 
It  is  precious  as  a  counterpart  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  therefore  as  furnishing  us  with  a  splendid 
specimen  of  a  Christian,  as  distinguished  from  a  Jewish, 
Apocalypse.  It  is  precious  as  showing  the  effect  produced 
on  the  thoughts  and  hopes  of  Christendom  by  the  first  out- 
burst of  Imperial  persecution.  It  is  especially  precious  as 
a  Christian  Philosophy  of  Historj-,  and  as  giving  a  voice  to 
the  inextinguishable  hopes  of  Christians  even  in  the  midst 
of  fire  and  blood.  And  besides  all  this  it  is  precious  as  fur- 
nishing the  earliest  insight  into  the  mind  of  the  Beloved 
Disciple,  in  a  stage  of  his  career  before  the  mighty  lessons 
involved  in  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  close  of  the  old 
^on  had  emancipated  him  from  the  last  fetters  of  Judaic 
bondage. 

2.  In  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  being 
more  and  more  widely  accepted  as  the  work  of  Apollos,  Ave 
have  a  specimen  of  Alexandrian  Christianity.  Valuable  for 
its  singular  dignity  and  eloquence,  for  the  powerful  argu- 
ment which  it  elaborates,  and  for  the  original  truths  with 
which  it  is  enriched,  it  also  possesses  a  very  special  interest 
because  it  gives  us  a  clear  insight  into  the  school  of  thought 
which  sprang  from  the  contact  of  Judaism  and  Christianity 
with  Greek  Philosophy.  Of  this  Alexandrianism  there  are 
but  scattered  indications  in  St.  John  and  St.  Paul,  but  it 
was  destined  in  God's  providence  to  exercise  a  very  power- 
ful influence  over  the  growth  and  development  of  Christian 
doctrine,  because  it  furnished  the  intellectual  training  of 
some  of  the  greatest  of  the  Christian  Fathers.  Our  loss 
would  have  been  irreparable  if  time  had  deprived  us  of  the 
earliest  and  profoundest  Christian  treatise  which  emanated 
from  the  splendid  school  of  Alexandrian  Theology. 

The  remaining  seven  treatises  of  the  New  Testament  are 
known  by  the  general  name  of  the  Seven  Catholic  Epistles. 
Various  untenable  explanations  of  the  name  *' Catholic " 
have  been  suggested ;  but  in  the  third  century  it  was  used 
in  the  sense  of  "encyclical,"-^  and  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  these  seven  letters  were  so  called  because  they  were 
addressed  not  to  one  cit5^,  or  even  to  one  nation,  but  gener- 
ally, to  every  Christian.  In  the  West  they  were  sometimes 
called  Epistolae  Canonicae,  but  this  could  not  have  been  the 

1  Euseb.  //.  E.  vii.  25. 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.       6 1 

original  meaning  of  Catholic,  since  Eusebius  gives  the  name 
to  the  letters  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth.'  Two  of  these  letters 
— the  Epistles  of  St.  James  and  St.  Jude — belong  to  the  Ju- 
daic school  of  Christianity ;  two  others — those  of  St.  Peter 
— represent  the  moderate  and  mediating  position  of  Chris- 
tians who  wished  to  stand  aloof,  alike  from  Paulinists  and 
Judaists,  on  the  more  general  grounds  of  a  common  Chris- 
tianity ;  three— those  of  St.  John — represent  a  phase  of 
thought  in  which  the  chief  controversies  which  agitated  the 
first  decades  of  the  Church's  history  have  melted  into  the 
distance,  or  have  been  solved  for  ever  by  the  Fall  of  Jerusa- 
lem. At  that  epoch  Truth  was  beginning  to  be  assailed 
from  without  by  new  forms  of  opposition,  or  corroded  from 
within  by  fresh  types  of  error. 

As  we  are  about  to  study  these  Epistles  in  detail,  we 
may  here  confine  ourselves  to  a  few  general  remarks  re- 
specting them. 

3.  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  is  the  work  of  a  non-Apos- 
tolic writer,  but  of  one  who  was  known  as  brother  of  St. 
James  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  who  evidently  resem- 
bled his  more  eminent  brother  in  intensity  of  character  and 
vehemence  of  conviction.  His  brief  letter  is  interesting 
from  its  very  peculiarities.  It  abounds  in  original  and  pic- 
turesque expressions,  and  fearlessly  utilizes  both  the  Jewish 
Hagadjth  and  the  apocryphal  literature,  with  which  the 
writer's  training  had  rendered  him  familiar.  In  the  pas- 
sionate vehemence  of  its  denunciations  against  Gnostic  lib- 
ertinism it  reads  like  a  page  of  Amos  or  of  Isaiah,  and  is 
evidently  the  work  of  one  who.  like  so  many  of  the  early 
Jewish  Christians,  had  thought  it  both  a  national  and  a  re- 
ligious duty  in  entering  the  Church  to  remain  true  to  the 
Synagogue.  It  is  a  sort  of  partial  and  anticipated  Apo- 
calypse, but  it  rests  content  with  isolated  metaphors,  instead 
of  continuous  symbols. 

4.  The  same  stern  Judaic  character,  rendered  still  more 
unbending  by  the  asceticism  of  the  writer,  marks  every  page 
of  The  Epistle  of  St.  James.  Living  exclusively  at  Jeru- 
salem, accurate  as  the  Pharisees  themselves  in  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Mosaic  Law — a  scrupulosity  which  had  gained 


»  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  23  ;  Leont.  Z)^  Sect.  27.  Theodoret  says  :  "Thev  arc  called  'Catho- 
lic,' which  is  equivalent  to  encyclical,  since  they  are  not  addressed  to  single  Churches,  but 
generally  {naQoXov)  to  the  faithful,  whether  to  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  as  Peter  writes,  or 
even  to  all  who  are  living  as  Christians  under  the  same  faith."  The  word  itself  simply  means 
"  general."  Some  scholars  have  argued  that  the  Fathers  use  it  in  the  sense  of  "  canonical," 
but  this  is  a  later  usage.     Sec  Ebrard's  Appendix  to  his  edition  of  i  Johti. 


62  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

him  his  title  of  ''  the  Just" — he  was  only  called  upon  "to 
be  a  Jew  to  the  Jews,"  and  this  he  was  by  nature,  by  tem- 
perament, and  by  training.  In  the  Synod  at  Jerusalem, 
where  St.  Peter  proposed  emancipation,  St.  James — even  in 
assenting — proposes  restrictions  ;  and  while  St.  Peter,  al- 
most in  Pauline  language,  declares  that  neither  Jew  nor 
Gentile  can  be  saved  except  "  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord 
Jesus-,"  ^  St.  James,  while  holding  the  same  faith,  urges  the 
claims  of  Moses,  and  follows  the  indications  of  the  Prophets. 
St.  Peter  never  mentions  "  the  Law  ;"  St.  James  never  men- 
tions "the  Gospel."  He  accepts  it  indeed  with  all  his 
heart,  but  it  still  presents  itself  to  him  as  "  the  Law,"  though 
glorified  from  "a  yoke  that  gendereth  to  bondage"^  into  a 
perfect  "law  of  liberty."  "  In  reading  St.  James  we  can  re- 
alize the  sentiments  of  the  Mother-Church  of  Jerusalem, 
and  feel  that  there  is  no  discontinuity  in  the  great  stream  of 
Divine  Revelation.  For  him,  and  for  the  Jewish  Christians 
of  whom  he  was  recognized  leader,  Christianity  is  not  so 
much  the  inauguration  of  the  New  as  the  fulfilment  of  the 
Old. 

5.  It  is  necessary,  and  even  desirable,  that  there  should 
in  all  ages  be  some  whose  mission  it  is  to  develop  one 
special  aspect  of  truth,  and  to  stamp  the  whole  of  their  re- 
ligious system  with  the  impress  of  their  own  powerful  in- 
dividuality. Such,  respectively,  were  St.  Paul  and  St. 
James.  Even  in  their  lifetime  there  were  some  who  exag- 
gerated and  perverted  the  special  truths  which  it  was  their 
work  to  teach.  After  their  death  there  were  Marcionites 
and  Antinomians  who  perverted  the  doctrines  of  St.  Paul, 
and  there  were  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes  who  falsely  claimed 
the  authority  of  St.  James.  But  happily  there  are  Chris- 
tians in  all  ages  who,  while  they  only  acknowledge  a  heav- 
enly master,  are  anxious  to  accept  truth  by  whomsoever  it 
is  presented  to  them,  yet  at  the  same  time  to  strip  it  of  all 
mere  party  peculiarities.  Such  was  St.  Peter.  He  can  see 
the  side  of  truth  which  either  of  his  great  contemporaries 
represents.  He  is  pre-eminently  the  Apostle  of  Catholicity. 
He  had  shown  in  his  conduct  at  Csesarea  that  his  convic- 
tions leaned  to  the  side  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  ;  and 
at  Antioch  that  he  could  not  wholly  emancipate  himself 
from  the  habits  induced  by  lifelong  training  in  the  princi- 
ples of  St.  James.     He  was  neither  able  nor  willing  wholly 


Acts  XV.  II.  2  Gal.  Iv.  24.  3  J.nnies  i.  25, 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS,      6^ 

to  shake  off  the  spell  of  personal  ascendency  exercised  over 
him  alike  by  the  great  world-missionary  and  by  the  unbend- 
ing Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  In  The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter 
we  are  able  to  trace  the  thoughts  and  expressions  of  both 
these  great  leaders.  He  dwells  with  all  the  energy  of  St. 
James  on  the  glory  of  practical  virtue,  and  with  much  of 
the  fervour  of  St.  Paul  on  the  distinctively  Christian  mo- 
tives and  sanctions.  But  it  is  no  part  of  his  object  to  follow 
St.  Paul  in  the  logical  development  and  formulation  of 
Christian  theology,  nor  yet  to  dwell  with  the  exclusiveness 
of  St.  James  on  Christian  practice.  Even  when  using  lan- 
guage which  had  been  seized  upon  as  the  shibboleth  of  par- 
tisans, he  strips  it  of  all  partisan  significance.  He  was  out 
of  sympathy  with  the  spirit  which  leads  to  disunion  and 
factiousness  by  the  exclusive  maintenance  of  antagonistic 
formulae. 

It  is  interesting  to  see  that  the  same  distinctive  peculiari- 
ties are  continued  in  later  writers  of  the  first  and  second 
centuries.  In  the  Epistle  of  the  pseudo-Barnabas  we  have 
an  exaggerated  Paulism  ;  in  the  pseudo-Clementines  an  ex- 
aggerated Judaism,  which  makes  a  special  hero  of  St.  James. 
St.  Peter,  standing  between  both  extremes,  was  claimed  by 
both  parties.  Basilides,  the  anti-Judaic  Egyptian  Gnostic, 
claimed  to  have  been  taught  by  Glaucias,  the  interpreter  of 
St.  Peter ;  and  another  apocryphal  work,  which  uttered 
strong  warnings  against  Jewish  worship,  was  called  "  The 
Preaching  of  Peter."  On  the  other  hand,  St.  Peter  shares, 
though  in  a  degree  subordinate  to  St.  James,  the  admira- 
tion of  the  Ebionite  partisans  who  w^rote  the  Clementine 
Homilies  and  Recognitions.  In  a  less  objectionable  way, 
but  still  w4th  something  of  exaggeration,  Hermas,  the  author 
of  the  famous  "Shepherd,"  reflects  the  teaching  of  St. 
James  ;  while  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  Catholic,  like  St.  Peter, 
in  all  his  sympathies,  ''combines  the  distinctive  featiu'es  of 
all  the  Apostolic  Epistles,"  and  "  belonging  to  no  party,  he 
seemed  to  belong  to  all."  ^ 

6.  There  remaia  The  Three  Epistles  of  St.  John,' 
which  may  be  regarded  collectively  as  the  last  utterance  of 
Christian  Revelation  in  the  New  Testament.  They  are  the 
more  interesting  not  only  on  this  account,  but  because  they 
are  the  work  of  one  who  had  been  exceptionally  near  to  the 


'  Lightfoot,  Galatlans^  p.  315. 

2  I  have  gone  through  every  fact  and  every  detail  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Jdhn  in  the  Life 
0/  (Jhrist,  and  for  that  reason  I  do  not  toucii  upon  it  here. 


64  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

heart  of  Christ,  and  had  lived  for  many  years  face  to  face 
with  the  great  heathen  world.  They  are  also  the  work  of 
one  w^ho  lived  to  see  mighty  changes  in  the  growth  and  for- 
tunes of  the  Christian  Church.  He  had  perhaps  been  the 
only  Apostle  who  had  seen  Jesus  die  ;  he  had  been  last  be- 
side the  Cross,  and  first  in  the  empty  tomb.  As  one  who 
had  watched  the  death-bed  of  the  Mother  of  the  Lord,  he 
had  been  one  of  the  very  few  depositories  of  the  awful 
mysteries  which  it  had  been  given  to  St.  Luke  partly  to 
reveal,  after  they  had  been  pondered  for  many  years  in  the 
holy  reticence  of  the  Virgin's  heart.  He  had  been  one  of 
the  scattered  despairing  band  who  had  spent  in  anguish  the 
awful  day  in  which  they  knew  that  Jesus  was  lying  dead, 
and  did  not  yet  understand  that  he  should  rise  again.  For 
a  quarter  of  a  century  he  was  the  sole  survivor  not  only  of 
those  who  had  heard  the  last  discourses  of  the  Lord  on  the 
evening  of  His  Passion,  but  even  of  any  who  could  say, 
*'  That  which  we  have  seen  and  our  hands  have  handled  of  the 
Word  of  Life  declare  w^e  unto  you."  But  his  Epistles  have 
yet  a  further  interest  as  the  w^ritings  of  one  who,  in  his  long 
and  diversified  experience,  had  undergone  a  remarkable 
change  alike  of  character  and  of  views  ;  of  one  who  had 
passed  from  the  Elijah-spirit  to  the  Christ-spirit — from  the 
narrower  scrupulosity  of  a  Judaist,  living  in  the  heart  of  the 
Jewish  capital  and  attending  thrice  a  day  the  Temple  wor- 
ship,  to  the  breadth  and  width  and  spirituality  of  Christian 
freedom.  We  have  in  the  Apocalypse  a  work  of  his  in  the 
earlier  stage  of  his  Christian  opinions,  when  he  stood  for 
the  first  time  face  to  face  with  the  Heathen  w^orld  in  its 
fiercest  attitude  of  anti-Christian  opposition.  We  have  in 
his  Gospel  and  Epistles  the  sweetest  and  loftiest  utterances 
of  Christian  idealism  ;  the  strains,  as  it  were,  of  Divinest 
music  in  which  the  voice  of  inspiration  died  away. 

It  may  perhaps  be  said  that  our  possession  of  these 
treasures — especially  of  some  of  them — is  disturbed  by  the 
growing  suspicion  as  to  their  genuineness.  On  this  score 
Christianity  has  little  to  fear.  Every  true  and  honourable 
man  will  regard  it  as  a  base  and  cowardly  unfaithfulness  to 
defend  as  certain  the  genuineness  of  any  book  of  the  Bible 
of  which  the  spuriousness  can  be  shown  to  be  even  reason- 
ably probable.  In  spite  of  ttie  conflict  which  has  raged 
around  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  we  are  deeply  convinced  that 
the  arguments  preponderate  in  favour  of  those  who  accept 
it  as  the  work  of   the  Beloved  Disciple.     I  should  find  no 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.      6$ 

difficulty  in  regarding  the  Apocalypse  as  being  the  work  of 
another  John  if,  in  spite  of  some  acknowledged  difficulties, 
the  Johannine  authorship  did  not  seem  to  be  all  but  incon- 
trovertible. The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  a  work  of 
St.  Paul,  but  it  is  pre-eminently  worthy  of  its  honoured  place 
in  the  Canon.  The  first  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John 
may  be  said  to  stand  above  all  suspicion.  The  Epistles  of 
St.  James  and  St.  Judc  have  less  distinctive  value  as  parts  of 
the  Christian  Revelation,  but  yet  have  their  own  inestimable 
worth,  and  derive  a  deeper  interest  from  being  the  works  of 
"brethren  of  the  Lord."  The  second  and  third  Epistles  of 
St.  John  are  almost  certainly  genuine,  but  whether  they  be 
by  the  Apostle  or  not  is  a  matter  of  minor  importance,  be- 
cause of  their  extreme  brevity,  and  because  they  consist  for 
the  most  part  of  recapitulated  truths.  They  are  but  corol- 
laries to  the  first  Epistle,  and  contain  no  doctrine  which  is 
not  found  more  fully  in  the  Apostle's  other  writings.  The 
only  one  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles  against  the  gen- 
uineness of  which  strong  arguments  may  be  adduced  is 
the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  which  is  in  any  case  the 
book  least  supported  by  external  testimony.  Its  genuine- 
ness must  be  regarded  as  a  question  for  still  further  discus- 
sion, and  the  recent  discovery  of  its  affinity  in  some  pas- 
sages to  the  works  of  Joseplius  requires  careful  attention.* 
In  the  introduction  to  each  of  these  Epistles  the  ev^idence 
as  to  their  genuineness  is  discussed.  Many,  both  in  ancient 
and  in  modern  days,  have  doubted  about  some  of  them. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  and  Eusebius,  Gains  and  Jerome, 
Erasmus  and  Cardinal  Cajetan,  Sixtus  Senensis  and  Lu- 
ther,' Zwingli,  Calvin,  CEcolampadius,  Grotius,  and  many 
more,  have  regarded  several  of  them  as  being  at  best  deu- 
tero-canonical, — authentic  (if  at  all)  in  a  lower  sense,  and 
endowed  with  inferior  authority  ;  but  though  the  Church  of 
England  has  shown  herself  wiser  than  the  council  of  Trent 
in  not  binding  with  an  anathema  the  necessary  acceptances 
of  the  genuineness  of  every  one  of  them,  we  have  every 
reason  to  rejoice  that  they  were  admitted  by  general  con- 
sent into  the  Christian  Canon. 

Enough,  I  trust,  has  been  urged  to  show  the  varied  and 
exceeding  preciousness  of  the  writings  which  we  are  now 

1  V.  infra,  pp.  190-92. 

2  Luther  was  not  by  any  means  the  only  ^eat  theologian,  either  in  ancient  or  modern 
times,  who  adopted  a  subjective  test.  There  were  others  also  who  ^'  den  Katton  im  Kanan 
suckteH  und fiinden." 


66  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

about  to  examine.  St.  Paul,  as  has  been  said,  dwells,  not 
of  course  exclusively,  but  predominantly,  on  Christian  doc- 
trine, St.  James  on  Christian  practice,  St.  Peter  on  Chris- 
tian trials,  and  St.  John  on  Christian  experience  ; — St.  Paul 
insists  mainly  on  faith,  St.  James  on  works,  St.  Peter  on 
hope,  and  St.  John  on  love  ; — St.  Paul  represents '  Christian 
scholasticism,  and  St.  John  Christian  mysticism  ; — St.  Paul 
represents  the  spirit  of  Protestantism,  St.  Peter  that  of 
Catholicism,  while  St.  James  speaks  in  the  voice  of  the 
Church  of  the  Past,  and  St.  John  in  that  of  the  Church  of 
the  Future  ; — St.  Peter  is  the  founder,  St.  Paul  the  propaga- 
tor, St.  John  the  finisher ; — St.  Peter  represents  to  us  the 
glory  of  power  and  action,  St.  Paul  that  of  thought  and  wis- 
dom, St.  James  of  virtue  and  faithfulness,  St.  John  of  emo- 
tion and  holiness.'  Again,  to  St.  James  Christianity  appears 
as  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Law,  to  St.  Peter  as  the  com- 
pletion of  the  old  Theocracy,  to  St.  Paul  as  the  completion 
of  the  old  Covenant,  to  Apollos  as  the  completion  of  the 
old  Worship  and  Priesthood,  to  St.  John  as  the  completion 
of  all  the  truths  which  the  w^orld  possessed.^  Such  general- 
isations may  be  too  seductive,  and  may  tend  to  mislead  us 
by  bringing  into  prominence  only  one  special  peculiarity  of 
each  writer,  while  others  are  for  the  time  ignored.  Yet 
they  contain  a  germ  of  truth,  and  they  may  help  us  to  seize 
the  more  salient  characteristics.  Two  things,  however,  are 
certain  : — One  is,  that  in  every  essential  each  of  the  sacred 
writers  held  the  Catholic  faith,  one  and  indivisible,  which  is 
no  more  altered  by  their  varying  individuality  than  Light 
is  altered  in  character  because  we  sometimes  see  it  glowing 
in  the  heavens,  and  sometimes  flashing  from  the  sea.  The 
other  is,  that  in  all  these  writers  alike  Ave  see  the  beauty  of 
holiness,  the  regenerating  power  of  Christian  truth. 

But  among  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  two  stand 
out  pre-eminently  as  what  would  be  called,  in  modern 
phraseology,  original  theologians.  They  are  St.  Paul  and 
St.  John.  On  some  of  the  special  differences  between  them . 
we  shall  touch  farther  on.  Meanwhile  w^e  shall  see  at  a 
glance  the  contrast  between  the  dialectical  method  of  the 
one  and  the  intuitive  method  of  the  other,  if  we  compare 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  with  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John. 
The  richness,  the  many-sidedness,  the   impetuosity,  the  hu- 


•  See  Schaff,  Nist.  of  the  Church,  105-110. 

'  See  Stanley,  Sermons  on  the  Apostolic  A!:e,  pp.  4,  5. 

»  See  I^iige,  Introductiou  to  Catliolic  Epistles,  Bibehverk,  ix. 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.      6^ 

man  individuality  of  the  one,  are  as  unlike  as  possible  to  the 
few  but  reiterated  keynotes,  the  unity,  the  sovereign  calm, 
the  spiritual  idealism  of  the  other.  The  difference  will  be 
emphasised  if  we  place  side  by  side  the  fundamental  con- 
ceptions of  their  theology.     That  of  St.  Paul  is  : — 

"  But  now,  apart  from  the  law,  the  righteousness  of  God  hath  been  mani- 
fested, witness  being  borne  thereto  by  the  law  and  the  prophets  ;  even  the 
righteousness  of  God  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all  them 
tliat  believe  ;  for  there  is  no  distinction  :  for  all  sinned,  and  are  falHng  short  of 
the  glory  of  God,  being  accounted  righteous  freely  by  his  grace  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (Rom.  iii.  21 — 24). 

That  of  St.  John  is  : — 

"  Herein  is  manifested  the  love  of  God  in  us,  because  he  hath  sent  his 
only  begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live  through  him  "  (i  John  iv. 
9)- 

It  requires  but  to  read  the  two  formulcc  side  by  side  to 
perceive  the  characteristic  differences  which  separate  the 
theological  conceptions  of  the  two  Apostles.  It  is  a  rich 
boon  to  possess  the  views  of  both. 

We  shall  be  still  more  inclined  to  value  this  precious 
heritage  of  Christian  thought  when  we  notice  that  the  least 
important  of  these  Catholic  Epistles  stands  on  an  incom- 
parably higher  level  than  any  of  the  writings  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers.  This  will  be  shown  by  a  glance  at  the  Epis- 
tle of  St.  Clement  and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas — writings  so 
highly  valued  in  the  Church  that  the  first  is  found  in  the 
Alexandrian  Manuscript,  and  the  second  in  the  Sinaitic 
Manuscript,  after  the  Apocalypse,  and  both  were  publicly 
read  in  churches  as  profitable  "  scriptures." 

(i)  The  Epistle  of  St.  Clement  is  thoroughly  eclectic, 
but  the  eclecticism  is  as  devoid  of  genius  and  originality  as 
an  ordinary  modern  sermon.  It  consists  in  a  free  usage  of 
phrases  borrowed  promiscuously  from  each  of  the  great 
Apostles,  rather  than  a  real  assimilation  of  their  views.  The 
piety  and  receptivity  of  the  writer  is  very  beautiful,  but  it 
cannot  be  said  that  it  is  vivified  by  a  single  luminous  or  in- 
forming idea. 

{a)  St.  Clement  has  read  St.  Paul  and  St.  John,  and  St. 
James  and  St.  Peter,  and  as  a  pupil  of  the  last  he  is  ani- 
mated by  a  genuine  spirit  of  catholicity  ;  but  he  does  not 
seem  to  have  realised  the  essential  distinctions  which  sepa- 
rate their  writings.  Tlie  substance  of  his  views  is  identical 
with  that  which  we  find  in  St.  Peter  and  St.  James,  but  he 


6S  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

clothes  them  in  expressions  borrowed  from  St.  Paul.  He 
says  with  St.  Paul,  "We  are  not  justified  by  ourselves,  nor 
by  works,  but  by  faith"  (c.  xxxii.),  and  he  says  with  St. 
James,  "being  justified  by  works  and  notbyAvords  "  (c.  xxx.); 
but  he  says  nothing  to  bring  into  harmony  the  apparent 
contradictions.  His  readiness  to  accept  all  moral  exhorta- 
tions and  all  Apostolic  phrases  acts  as  a  solvent  in  which 
the  special  meaning  of  these  phrases  as  parts  of  entire  sys- 
tems is  apt  to  disappear.  Three  of  the  sacred  writers  refer 
in  different  ways  and  for  different  purposes  to  Abraham 
(Rom.  iv.  ;  James  ii.  21  ;  Heb.  xi.  8).  In  the  syncretism  of 
St.  Clement  the  allusions  made  by  all  three  are  mingled  in 
one  sentence.  Rahab,  in  St.  Clement,  is  saved  by  her  faith 
and  by  her  hospitality y^A\\Q\\  is  a  curious  union  of  James  ii. 
25  and  Heb.  xi.  31  ;  and  the  only  original  observation  which 
St.  Clement  adds  is  the  allegorising  fancy  that  the  red 
cord  with  which  she  let  the  spies  down  from  the  window  in- 
dicated the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  for  all  who  believe 
and  hope  in  God  {Ep.  ad  Cor.  xii.).  Thus  the  mechanical 
fusion  of  two  quotations  is  ornamented  by  a  loose,  poor,  and 
untenable  analogy,  w4iich  enables  him  to  add  "prophecy" 
to  the  faith  and  hospitality  which  distinguished  the  harlot 
of  Jericho. 

ib)  So,  too,  when  St.  Clement  speaks  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion, we  see  how  immeasurably  his  theology  has  retrograded 
behind  that  of  St.  Paul.  He  does  not  connect  it  immediate- 
ly and  necessarily  with  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  but 
proves  it  by  Old  Testament  quotations,  and  illustrates  its 
possibility  by  natural  analogies,  especially  by  the  existence 
and  history  of  the  Phoenix  !  How  much  would  our  estimate 
of  inspiration  have  been  lowered — how  loud  would  have 
been  the  scornful  laugh  of  modern  materialists — had  faith 
in  the  Resurrection  been  founded  in  the  New  Testament  on 
such  arguments  as  these  !  Tacitus,  too,  believed  in  the 
Phoenix  ;  but  Tacitus  does  not  refer  to  the  fable  of  its  reap- 
pearance by  way  of  founding  on  it  an  inestimable  truth. 
We  are  not  comparing  St.  Clement  with  Tacitus  ;  we  love 
his  gentleness  and  respect  his  piety  ;  we  are  only  endeavour- 
ing to  show  how  far  he  stands  below  the  level  of  St.  John 
and  of  St.  Paul. 

(c)  But  still  more  striking  instances  might  be  furnished 
of  the  theological  and  intellectual  weakness  of  this  ancier.t 
and  saintly  writer.  He  never  deviates  into  originality  ex- 
cept to  furnish  an  illustration,  and  his  illustrations,  even 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.      69 

when  they  are  not  erroneous,  have  but  little  intrinsic  value. 
The  worth  of  his  Epistle  consists  in  its  earnest  spirit,  and 
in  its  historic  testimony  to  the  canonical  Scriptures  and  to 
the  constitution  of  the  early  Church.  But  how  different  is 
its  diluted  and  transitional  Paulinism  from  the  force  and 
wealth  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter ! 

(2)  Nor  is  it  otherwise  when  w^e  turn  to  the  exaggerated 
and  extravagant  Paulinism  of  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas. 
Here  the  inferiority  is  still  more  marked  :  it  even  leads  to 
decadent  doctrine  and  incipient  heresy. 

(a)  The  waiter  has  learnt  from  St.  Paul  the  nullity  of  the 
Law  as  a  means  of  Salvation,  but  he  has  not  learnt  the  true 
and  noble  function  of  the  Law  in  the  Divine  economy.  He 
cannot  see  that  there  may  be  even  in  that  w^hich  is  imperfect 
a  relative  perfection.  He  does  not  understand  the  Divine 
value  of  "^osaism  as  God's  education  of  the  human  race. 
Not  content  with  spiritualising  the  meaning  of  the  Law%  he 
speaks  of  its  literal  meaning  in  terms  of  such  contempt  as 
almost  to  compromise  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament 
altogether.  He  ventures  to  say  that  the  circumcision  of 
the  flesh  was  an  inspiration  of  "an  evil  angel"  (c.  ix.). 
When  a  writer  has  gone  so  far  as  this,  he  is  perilously  near 
to  actual  Gnosticism.  In  his  attempt  to  allegorise  the  dis- 
tinction between  clean  and  unclean  animals  (c.  x.)  he  is  seen 
at  his  very  worst.  A  single  chapter  so  full  Of  errors  and  fol- 
lies, if  found  in  any  canonical  book,  would  have  sufficed  to 
drag  down  the  authority  of  Scriptiu'e  into  the  dust. 

\b)  Again,  like  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
Barnabas— for  that  may  have  been  his  name,  though  he  was 
not  the  Apostle — is  acquainted  with  Alexandrian  methods 
of  exegesis.  But  his  use  of  them  is  indiscriminate  and  un- 
satisfactory. The  Israelites  had  been  promised  a  land  flow- 
ing with  milk  and  honey  ;  Barnabas  proceeds  to  allegorise 
the  promise  as  follows  : — Adam  was  made  of  earth  ;  the 
earth  therefore  signifies  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  ;  milk  and 
honey,  which  are  suitable  to  infants,  signify  the  new  birth. 
Thus  the  Old  Testament  is  a  prophecy  of  the  New  !  On 
this  demonstration  the  author  looks  with  such  special  com- 
placency that  he  quotes  it  as  a  memorable  example  of  true 
knowledge  {gnosis). 

{c)  Again,  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  had 
proved  from  Scripture  that  there  still  remains  a  Sabbath- 
rest  (Sabbatismos)  for  the  people  of  God.  Barnabas  con- 
nects   this  with   what    he   calls   an    Etrurian  tradition,  and 


JO  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIAxMTY. 

originates  the  notion  that  the  world  is  to  be  burned  up  in 
the  year  6000  after  the  Creation.  Again,  he  has  learnt  the 
general  conception  of  numerical  exegesis  {gematria)  from 
Jewish  and  Alexandrian  sources,  and  he  is  specially  proud 
of  pressing  Abraham's  318  servants  into  a'mystic  prophecy  of 
the  Crucifixion,  because  318  is  represented  hy  HIT,  of  which 
Iff  stands  for  Jesus,  and  T  for  the  cross.  This  is  a  style  of 
exegesis  Rabbinic,  but  not  Christian.  No  one  can  read  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  after  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  with- 
out seeing  that  the  former  is  not  only  immeasurably  inferior, 
but  that  it  is  j-*?  inferior  as  to  tremble  on  the  verge  of  danger- 
ous heresy.  Let  the  reader  compare  the  reference  to  the 
Day  of  Atonement  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (c.  vii.)  with 
that  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — let  him  contrast  the 
numerous  errors  and  monstrously  crude  typology  of  the 
former  with  the  splendid  spiritualism  of  the  latter— let  him 
notice  how  tasteless  are  the  fancies  of  this  unknown  Barnabas, 
and  how  absurd  are  many  of  his  statements — and  he  will  see 
the  difference  between  canonical  and  uncanonical  books,  and 
learn  to  feel  a  deeper  gratitude  for  the  superintending  Pro- 
vidence which,  even  in  ages  of  ignorance  and  simplicity, 
obviated  the  danger  of  any  permanent  confusion  between 
the  former  and  the  latter.' 


We  have  already  seen  what  the  condition  of  the  world 
was  like,  let  us  sum  up  its  points  of  contrast  with  the 
general  picture  presented  by  the  early  Christian  Church. 

To  represent  the  Christian  Church  as  ideally  pure,  as 
stainlessly  excellent  and  perfect,  would  be  altogether  a  mis- 
take. ThD  Christians  of  the  first  days  were  men  and  wo- 
men of  like  passions  with  ourselves.  They  sinned  as  we 
sin,  and  suffered  as  we  suffer  ;  they  were  inconsistent  as  we 
are  inconsistent,  fell  as  we  fall,  and  repented  as  we  repent. 
Hatred  and  party-spirit,  rancour  and  misrepresentation, 
treachery  and  superstition,  innovating  audacity  and  unspirit- 
ual  retrogressions  were  known  among  them  as  among  us. 
And  yet,  with  all  their  faults  and  failings,  they  were  as  salt 
amid  the  earth's  corruption  ;  the  true  light  had  shined  in 
their  hearts,  and  they  were  the  light  of   the  world.     The 


*  The  same  result  would  follow  from  comparing  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  with  the  Apoca- 
lypse. On  these  writings  we  may  refer  to  Reuss,  'J'AJoi.  Ckret.  ii.;  Hilgenfeld,  Apost.  Vdter  ; 
Schwegler,  Nachafi.  Zeitalter  ;  Donaldson,  Apostolical  Fathers  :  Lightfoot,  St.  Clement 
of  Rome  ;   Pfleiderer,  Pault'iiiTiiius,  ii. ;   Ritschl,  Altkath.  Kirclie. 


WRITINGS  OF  APOSTLES  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIANS.       /I 

lords  of  earth  were  such  men  as  Tiberius  and  Caligula,  and 
Nero  and  Domitian  ;  the  rulers  of  the  church  were  a  James, 
a  Peter,  a  Paul,  a  John.  The  literary  men  of  the  world 
were  a  Martial  and  a  Petronius  ;  the  Church  was  producing 
the  Apocalypse,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John.  The  art  of  the  world  was  degraded  by  such  in- 
famous pictures  as  those  on  the  walls  of  Pompeii  ;  that  of 
the  Church  consisted  in  the  rude  but  pure  and  joyous 
emblems  scrawled  on  the  soft  tufa  of  the  catacombs.  The 
amusements  of  the  world  w^ere  pitilessly  sanguinary  or 
shamefull}^  corrupt ;  those  of  the  Christians  were  found  in 
gatherings  at  once  social  and  religious,  as  bright  as  they 
could  be  made  by  the  gaiety  of  innocent  and  untroubled 
hearts.  In  the  world  infanticide  was  infamously  universal  ; 
in  the  Church  the  baptised  little  ones  w^ere  treated  as  those 
whose  angels  beheld  the  face  of  our  Father  in  Heaven.  In 
the  w^orld  slavery  w^as  rendered  yet  more  intolerable  by  the 
cruelty  and  impurity  of  masters  ;  in  the  Church  the  Chris- 
tian slave,  welcomed  as  a  friend  and  a  brother,  often  hold- 
ing a  position  of  ministerial  dignity,  was  emancipated  in  all 
but  name.  In  the  world  marriage  w^as  detested  as  a  disagree- 
able necessity,  and  its  very  meaning  was  destroyed  by  the 
frequency  and  facility  of  divorce  ;  in  the  church  it  was  con- 
secrated and  honourable — the  institution  which  had  alone 
survived  the  loss  of  Paradise — and  was  all  but  sacramental 
in  its  Heaven-appointed  blessedness.  The  world  was  set- 
tling into  the  sadness  of  unalleviated  despair  ;  the  Church 
was  irradiated  by  an  eternal  hope,  and  rejoicing  with  a  joy 
unspeakable  and  full  of  glory.  In  the  world  men  were 
**  hateful  and  hating  one  another;"  in  the  Church  the 
beautiful  ideal  of  human  brotherhood  was  carried  into  prac- 
tice. The  Church  had  learnt  her  Saviour's  lessons.  A  re- 
deemed humanity  was  felt  to  be  the  loftiest  of  dignities  ; 
man  was  honoured  for  being  simply  man  ;  every  soul  was 
regarded  as  precious,  because  for  every  soul  Christ  died  ; 
the  sick  w^ere  tended,  the  poor  relieved  ;  labour  was  repre- 
sented as  noble,  not  as  a  thing  to  be  despised  ;  purity  and 
resignation,  peacefulness  and  pity,  humility  and  self-denial, 
courtesy  and  self-respect  were  looked  upon  as  essential 
qualifications  for  all  who  were  called  by  the  name  of  Christ. 
The  Church  felt  that  the  innocence  of  her  baptised  mem- 
bers was  her  most  irresistible  form  of  apology ;  and  all 
lier  best  members  devoted  themselves  to  that  which  they  re- 
garded as  a  sacred  task — the  breaking  down  of  all  the  middle 


72  THE   EARLY  DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

walls  of  partition  in  God's  universal  temple,  the  oblitera- 
tion of  all  minor  and  artificial  distinctions,  and  the  free  de- 
velopment of  man's  spiritual  nature. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


ST.    PETER. 

ExKpiro;  7/v  ruiv  Attoo-toAwv  koI  o-rd/xa  twv  naBrjTujv  Koi  Kopv(f>r)  tou  xopov' — Chrysost.  in 
yoann.    Horn.  88. 

The  early  life  of  St.  Peter  cannot  here  be  re-written,  because 
in  two  previous  works  '  I  have  followed  the  steps  of  his 
career  so  far  as  it  is  sketched  in  the  sacred  volume.  After 
his  youth  as  a  poor  and  hardworked  fisherman  of  the  Lake 
of  Galilee,  we  first  find  him  as  one  of  the  hearers  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist  in  the  wilderness  of  Jordan.  Brought  to  Jesus 
by  his  brother  Andrew,  he  at  once  accepted  the  Saviour's 
call,  and  received  by  anticipation  that  name  of  Kephas 
which  he  was  afterwards  to  earn,  partly  by  the  stronger  ele- 
ments of  his  character,  and  part!}'  by  the  grandeur  of  his 
Messianic  confession.  We  have  already  tried  to  understand 
the  significance  of  the  scenes  in  which  he  takes  part.  We 
have  seen  how  he  was  called  to  active  work  and  the  aban- 
donment of  earthly  ties  after  the  miraculous  draught  of 
fishes.  We  have  watched,  step  by  step,  the  "  consistently 
inconsistent "  impetuosity  of  his  character,  at  once  brave 
and  wavering — first  brave  then  wavering,  but  always  finally 
recovering  its  courage  and  integrity.'  The  narrative  of  the 
Gospel  has  brought  before  us  his  attempt  to  walk  to  his  Lord 
upon  the  water  ;  his  first  public  acknowledgment  of  Jesus 
as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ;  the  magnificent 
promises  which,  in  his  person,  the  Church  received  ;  the 
subsequent  presumption,  which  his  Lord  so  sternly  rebuked; 
the  many  eager  questions,  often  based  upon  mistaken 
notions,  which  he  addressed  to  Christ,  and  which  formed 
the  occasion  of  some  of  our  Lord's  most  striking  utterances  ; 
the  incident  of  the  Temple  contribution  ;  the  refusal  and 
then  the  eagerness  to  be  washed  by  Christ  ;, the  warnings 

1  The  Life  of  Christ,  1874  :   The  Life  of  St.  Paul,  1879. 

2  "  Vrai  coniraste  de  pusillanimity  et  de  grandeur,  condamn^  A  osciller  toujours  entre  la 
faute  et  le  repentir,  mais  rachctantglorleusement  sa  faiblesse  par  son  humilitd  et  ses  larmes" 
(Thierry,  St.  ferome,  i.  176). 


ST.    PETER.  73 

•addressed  to  him  ;  the  inability  to  *'  watch  one  hour";  the 
impetuous  blow  struck  at  the  High  Priest's  servant  ;  his 
forsaking  of  Christ  in  the  hour  of  peril;  his  threefold  de- 
nial ;  his  bitter  repentance  and  forgiveness  ;  his  visit  to  the 
Sepulchre  ;  the  message  which  he  received  from  the  Risen 
Saviour  ;  the  exquisite  scene  at  morning,  on  the  shores  of 
the  misty  lake,  when  Jesus  appeared  once  more  to  seven  of 
His  disciples,  and  when,  having  once  more  tested  the  love 
of  His  generous  but  unstable  Apostle,  He  gave  him  His 
last  special  injunctions  to  tend  Flis  sheep  and  feed  His 
lambs,  and  foretold  to  him  his  earthly  end. 

Similarly  we  have  studied,  in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  the  leading  part  which  he  took  in  the  early 
days  after  the  death  of  Christ  ;  his  speech  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost ;  his  miracles  ;  his  journey  to  Samaria  and  the 
discoriifiture  of  Simon  Magus  ;  his  kindness  to  St.  Paul  ; 
his  memorable  vision  at  Joppa  ;  his  baptism  of  Cornelius  ; 
his  bold  initiative  of  living  and  eating  with  Gentiles  who 
had  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  the  dauntlessness 
with  which  he  faced  the  anger  of  the  Jerusalem  Pharisees  ; 
his  imprisonment  and  deliverance  ;  the  manly  outspoken- 
ness of  his  opinions  in  the  Synod  at  Jerusalem,  when  he 
declared  himself  unhesitatingly  in  favour  of  the  views  of 
St.  Paul  as  to  the  freedom  of  Gentile  converts  from  the  bur- 
den of  Mosaic  observances.  At  this  point — about  a.d.  51 — 
he  disappears  from  the  narrative  of  the  Acts.  From  this 
time  forward  he  was  overshadowed — at  Jerusalem  by  the 
authority  of  James  the  Lord's  brother,  throughout  the  Gen- 
tile communities  by  the  genius  and  energy  of  St.  Paul. 
This  was  naturally  due  to  his  intermediate  position  between 
the  extreme  parties  of  Paulinists  and  Judaists.  Among  the 
scattered  Christian  communities  of  the  Circumcision  he  main- 
tained a  high  authority,  although  it  is  probable  that  Chris- 
tian tradition  has  not  erred  in  indicating  that  even  among 
the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  Dispersion  St.  James  still  occu- 
pied the  leading  position.  All  that  we  can  further  learn 
respecting  him  in  Scripture  is  derived  from  his  own  Epis- 
tles, and  from  one  or  two  casual  but  important  allusions  in 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
we  read  the  description  of  the  memorable  scene  at  Antioch, 
which  produced  upon  the  Church  so  deep  an  impression. 
Led  away  by  the  timidity  which  so  strangely  alternated  with 
boldness  in  his  character,  St.  Peter,  on  the  arrival  of  emis- 
saries from  James,  had  suddenly  dropped  the  familiar  inter- 


74  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

course  with  Gentiles  which  up  to  that  time  he  had  main- 
tained. Shocked  by  an  inconsistency  of  which  he  would 
iiimself  have  been  incapable,  St.  Paul,  the  young  convert, 
the  former  persecutor,  w^as  compelled  by  the  call  of  duty 
publicly  to  withstand  the  great  Apostle,  who  by  his  own 
conduct  stood  condemned  for  inconsistency,  and  had  shown 
himself  untrue  to  his  ow^n  highest  convictions.  Further 
than  this,  we  learn  that  the  name  of  Peter  was  elevated  at 
Corinth  (a.d.  57)  into  a  party  watchword  ;  and  that  he  was 
engaged  in  missionary  journeys,  in  w^iich  he  was  accom- 
panied by  a  Christian  sister,  w^ho  (since  we  know  that  he 
was  married)  w^as  in  all  probability  his  wife.  From  his  own 
Epistles  we  learn  almost  nothing  about  his  biography. 
Nearly  every  inference  w^hich  we  derive  from  them  is  pre- 
carious, even  when  it  is  intrinsically  probable.  He  writes 
■'to  the  elect  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion  in  Pontus,  Ga- 
latia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,"  but  we  cannot  be 
certain  that  he  had  personally  visited  those  countries.^  •  The 
question  whether  his  letter  is  addressed  to  the  Jewish  or  the 
Gentile  converts  is  one  which  still  meets  wnth  the  most  con- 
tradictory, although  at  the  same  time  the  most  confident,  re- 
plies. He  sends  his  letter  by  Silvanus  ;  but  we  are  not 
expressly  told  that  this  Silvanus  is  the  previous  companion 
of  St.  Paul.  He  sends  a  salutation  from  ''  Marcus  my  son," 
but  there  is  nothing  to  Jfroz^e  that  Marcus  was  not  his  real 
son,'  nor  have  we  any  certain  information  that  he  is  refer- 
ring to  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist.  In  these  instances  we 
may,  however,  accept  the  general  consensus  of  Christian 
antiquity  in  favour  of  the  affirmative  suppositions,^  If  so, 
we  see  the  deeply  interesting  fact  that  the  chosen  friends 
and  companions  of  St.  Peter  were  also  the  chosen  friends 
and  companions  of  St.  Paul — a  fact  which  eloquently  re- 
futes the  modern  supposition  of  the  irreconcilable  antagon- 
ism between  the  two  Apostles  and  their  Schools.  But  when 
we  come  to  the  closing  salutation — ''  The  co-elect  in  Baby- 
lon saluteth  you,"  the  conclusions  of  each  successive  com- 

*  That  he  had  done  so  is  simply  an  inference  from  i  Pet.  i.  i.  Origen  only  says,  "He 
seems  lo  have  preached  there"  (a/.  Euseb.  iii.  i).  See  Epiphan.  Hatr.  xxvii.  ;  Jerome, 
Catal.  J.  V.  Pctriip, 

'■^  St.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  says  {Strom,  iii.,  p.  44P)  that  he  had  sons  of  his  own,  but 
their  names  are  not  preserved,  and  they  were  therefore  probably  unknown  persons.  Tradi- 
tion tells  of  a  daughter,  Petronilla  (Acta  Sn/ict..  May.  31). 

3  Some  have  supposed  that  an  actual  .son  of  St.  Peter's  is  meant,  but  Origen  (a/.  Euseb. 
//.  /?.  vi.  25),  (Ecumenius,  etc.,  are  probal)ly  right  in  supposing  that  John  Mark  (Acts  xii. 
25),  the  Evangelist,  is  meant,  especially  as  Papias,  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Irenaeus  and 
others,  say  that  he  was  the  follower,  disciple,  and  interpreter  of  St.  Peter  (Euseb.  //.  Jt.  iii. 
39,  vi.  14,  etc.;   Iren.  Haer.  iii.  11). 


ST.    PETER.  75 

mentator  are  widely  divergent.  It  is  still  disputed  whether 
*'  the  co-elect  "  is  a  Christian  Church  or  a  Christian  woman; 
and  if  the  latter,  whether  she  is  or  is  not  Peter's  wife  ;  and 
whether  Babylon  is  the  great  Assyrian  capital  or  a  meta- 
phorical allusion  to  the  great  western  Babylon — Imperial 
Rome. 

Eminent  as  was  the  position  of  St.  Peter/  the  real  de- 
tails of  the  closing  years  of  his  life  will  never  be  known. 
But  Christian  tradition,  acquiring  definiteness  in  proportion 
as  it  is  removed  from  tlie  period  of  which  it  speaks,  has  pro- 
vided us  with  many  details,  which  form  the  biography  of 
the  Apostle  as  it  is  ordinarily  accepted  by  Romanists.  We 
are  told  that  he  left  Jerusalem  in  a.d.  ^;^,  and  was  for  seven 
years  Bishop  of  Antioch,  leaving  Euodius  as  his  successor ; 
that  during  this  period  he  founded  the  Churches  to  which 
his  letter  is  addressed  ;  that  he  went  to  Rome  in  a.d.  40,  and 
was  bishop  there  for  twenty-five  years,  though  he  constantly 
left  the  city  for  missionary  journeys.  The  chief  events  of 
his  residence  at  Rome  were,  according  to  legend,  his  con- 
version of  Philo  and  of  the  Senator  Pudens,  with  his  two 
daughters,  Praxedes  and  Pudentiana  ;  and  his  public  con- 
flict with  Simon  Magus.  The  impostor  after  failing  to  raise 
a  dead  youth — a  miracle  which  St.  Peter  accomplished — 
finally  attempted  to  delude  the  people  by  asserting  that  he 
would  fly  to  heaven  ;  but,  at  the  prayer  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul,  he  was  deserted  by  the  demons  who  supported  him, 
and  dashed  bleeding  to  the  earth.'  During  the  Neronian 
persecution  the  Apostle  is  said  to  have  yielded  to  the  ur- 
gent requests  of  the  Christians  that  he  should  escape  from 
Rome  ;  but  when  he  had  got  a  little  beyond  the  Porta  Ca- 
pena  he  met  the  Lord  carrying  His  cross,  and  asked  Him, 
'*  Lord,  whither  goest  thou?"  {Domi?ie^  quo  vadis'i)  *' I  go 
to  Rome,"  said  Jesus,  "to  be  crucified  again  for  thee."  The 
Apostle,  feeling  the  force  of  the  gentle  rebuke,  turned  back, 
and  was  imprisoned  in  the  Tullianum.  He  there  converted 
his  jailer,  miraculously  causing  a  spnng  to  burst  out  from 
the  rocky  floor  for  his  baptism.     On  seeing  his  wife  led  to 

1  See  Excursus  I.,  on  tlie  Asserted  Primacy  of  St.  Peter. 

2  Tliere  seems  to  liave  been  a  similar  legend  nbout  Balaam,  dimly  alluded  to  by  the  LXX. 
in  the  words  kv  rjj  poirjj,  Josh.  xiii.  22,  and  in  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  Num.  .\xxi.  6.  See 
Frankl,  ForstiuiieK.  p.  187.  For  the  whole  legend  of  Simon  Magus  see  Justin.  Mart.  A/>ol. 
ii.  69;  Iren.  Haer.  i.  20;  Tert.  Apol.  13;  Euseb.  //.  E.  ii.  14;  Cot'tst.  Afiost.  vi.  8,  9: 
Arnob.  adz>.  Gentes,  ii.  :  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxi.  ;  Sulp.  Sev.  ii.  ;  Egesippus,  De  E.xcul. 
Hieros.  iii.  2  (on  Egesippus  see  Herzog,  s.  v.  Heg. )  ;  Nicephorus,  H.  K.  ii.  14  ;  Acta  Fftri 
ct  Fault  :  Ps.  Abdias,  Acta  Apost.  From  these  authors  it  is  taken  by  Marcossius,  De 
Haereticis.  p.  444,  and  the  Church  historians. 


76  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

execution  he  rejoiced  at  her  "journey  homewards,"*  and 
addressing  her  by  name,  called  to  her  in  a  voice  full  of 
cheerful  encouragement,  "Oh,  remember  the  Lord  !"  He 
was  executed  on  the  same  day  as  St.  Paul.  They  parted  on 
the  Ostian  road,  and  St.  Peter  was  then  led  to  the  top  of  the 
Janiculum,  wiiere  he  was  crucified,  not  in  the  ordinary  po- 
sition, but,  by  his  own  request,  head  downwards,  because  he 
lield  himself  unworthy  to  die  in  the  same  manner  as  his  Lord. 
In  the  whole  of  this  legend,  embellished  as  it  is  in  cur- 
rent Martyrologies  with  many  elaborate  details,  there  is 
scarcely  one  single  fact  on  which  we  can  rely.  For  instance, 
the  notion  that  Peter  was  ever  Bishop  at  Antioch  between 
the  years  a.d.  33 — 40  is  inconsistent  with  clear  statements 
in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts,  in  which  Paul  and  Barnabas 
appear  as  the  leaders  and  virtual  founders  of  that  Gentile 
Church.'''  Again,  if  he  la^d /oim^ed  the  Church  of  Rome,  or 
had  ever  resided  there  before  a.d.  64,  it  is  inconceivable  that 
neither  St.  Luke  in  the  Acts,  nor  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  nor  again  in  the  fiA^e  letters  which  he  wrote 
from  Rome  during  his  first  and  second  imprisonments, 
should  have  made  so  much  as  the  slightest  allusion  to  him 
or  to  his  work.  The  story  of  his  collision  with  Simon 
Magus  is  a  romance.  It  is  founded  on  St.  Peter's  actual 
meeting  with  the  sorcerer  in  Samaria,  w^hich  is  developed 
in  the  Clementines  into  a  series  of  journeys  from  place  to 
place,  undertaken  with  the  express  view  of  thwarting  this 
"  founder  of  all  the  heresies."  The  legend  is  partly  due  to 
a  mistake  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  supposed  that  a  statue  dedi- 
cated to  the  Sabine  god  Semo  Sancus^  (of  whom  Justin  had 
never  heard)  was  reared  in  honour  of  "  Simon  Sanctus."  * 
With  these  elements  of  confusion  there  is  mixed  up  a  malig- 
nant Ebionite  attempt  to  calumniate  St.  Paul  in  a  covert 
way  under  the  pseudonym  of  Simon  Magus,  and  to  imply 
that  St.  Peter  was  at  the  head  of  a  counter-mission  to  over- 
throw the  supposed  heretical  teaching  of  his  brother-Apos- 
tle. The  notion  of  this  counter-mission  is  derived  from  the 
actual  counter-mission  of  Judaists  who  falsely  claimed  the 
sanction  of  St.  James.^     The  circumstance  which  suggested 


J  T^?  ei?  oIkov  a»/a/co/xt6^s  (Clem,  Alex.  Strain,  vii.). 

2  Acts  xi.  ig.  3  Qy  Fast.  vi.  213  ;  Prop.  iv.  9,  74,  etc. 

*  He  was  identified  with  Dius  Fidius.  The  inscription  was  actually  found  in  1574,  in  the 
popedom  of  Gregory  XIII.,  on  an  island  in  the  Tiber,  as  Justin  said.  Justin,  ApoL  i.  26  ; 
Tert.  Apol.  13  ;  Karonius,  Annal.  ad  an.  44  ;  Gieseler,  i.  49  ;  Neander,  ii.  162  ;  Renan,  Lrs 
Apdtres,  pp.  ■2T$-'2']T.  In  this  island,  now  called  "The  Island  of  Saint  Bartholomew,"  there 
was  a  college  of  Tridentalcs  in  honour  of  Semo  Sancus  (OrcUi,  Inscr.,  1860-61). 

*  Acts  XV.  24. 


ST.    PETER.  ^^ 

the  legendary  death  of  Simon  in  an  attt;mpt  to  fly  was  the 
actual  death  of  an  actor,  who  was  dashed  to  the  ground  at 
Nero's  feet  while  trying,  by  means  of  a  Hying  machine,  to 
sustain  the  part  of  Icarus.^  If  the  youthful  actor  who  was 
condemned  to  make  this  perilous  attempt  was  a  Christian, 
who  would  otherwise  have  been  executed  in  some  other 
way,  we  may  well  imagine  that  Christians  would  not  soon 
forget  an  incident  which  sprinkled  the  very  Antichrist  with 
the  blood  of  martyrs.-  But  it  is  possible  that  the  legend 
may  rest  on  some  small  basis  of  fact.  Rome  abounded  in 
Oriental  thaumaturgists  and  impostors.  Simon  may  have 
been  attracted  to  a  city  which  naturally  drew  to  itself  all  the 
villainy  of  the  world,  and  there  he  may  once  more  have  en- 
countered St.  Peter. ^  But  if  they  met  at  Rome,  all  the  de- 
tails of  their  meeting  have  been  disguised  under  a  mixture 
of  vague  reminiscences  and  imaginary  details. 

The  assertion  that  St.  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome,  but 
that  he  constantly  left  it  to  exercise  apostolic  oversight 
throughout  the  world,  is  nothing  but  an  ingenious  theory.* 
The  statement  that  he  came  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Clau- 
dius, A.  D.  42,  is  first  found  in  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius, 
nearly  three  centuries  afterwards,  and  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  fair  inferences  from  what  St.  Paul  tells  us  about  the 
Church.  As  late  as  a.d.  52  St.  Peter  w^as  at  Jerusalem,  and 
took  an  active  part  in  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.  7)  ; 
and  he  was  then  labouring  mainly  among  the  Jews  (Gal.  ii. 
7,  9).  In  A.D.  57  he  w^as  travelling  as  a  missionary  with  his 
wife  (-1  Cor.  ix.  5).  He  was  not  at  Rome  when  St.  Paul 
wrote  to  that  Church  in  a.d.  58,  nor  when  St.  Paul  came 
there  as  a  prisoner  in  a.d.  61,  nor  during  the  years  of  St. 
Paul's  imprisonment,  a.d.  61—63,  "oi*  when  he  wrote  his 
last  Epistles,  a.d.  dd  and  67.  If  he  w^as  ever  at  Rome  at  all, 
wiiich  we  hold  to  be  almost  certain,  from  the  unanimity  of 
the  tradition,  it  could  only  have  been  very  briefly  before  his 
martyrdom.'     And  this  is,  in  fact,  the  assertion  of  Lactan- 

1  On  this  attempt  to  fly,  see  the  commentators  on  Juv.  Sat.  viii.  i86  ;  Mart.  Spectac.  vu.; 
Suet.  Nero,  12.  .   .^ 

2  "Icarus,  piimo  statim  conatu,  jiixta  cubiculum  ejus  decidit  ipsumque  cruore  respersit, 
Suet.  /.  c. 

3  As  asserted  in  Justin,  Apol.  i.  26,  56  ;  Iren.  contra  Hacr.  i.  23,  §  i  ;  Philosoplntmeua, 
vi.  20  ;   Co>isti.  Apost.  v.;  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  13,  14,  etc. 

•»  It  was  first  suggested  by  Baronius  {Annal.  ad  an.  39.  §  25)  and  Fr.  Windischmann 
{Viiidiciae  Petriuac,  p.  112),  and  hastily  adopted  by  Thier.sch  (.V.    Test.  Cation,  p.  104). 

5  This  view  is  now  accepted  by  Roman  Catholics  like  Valesius,  Pagi,  Hakir,  Hug,  Klee, 
Dolhnger,  Waterworth,  AUnatt.  See  Waterworth,  Engl,  and  Rome,  ii. ;  AUnatt,  Cathedra 
Petri,  p.  1x4.  The  Roman  Catholic  historian  Alzog  only  speaks  of  the  twenty-five  years 
episcopate  as  an  ancient  report  (i.  104). 


78  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

tius'  (f  330),  who  snys  that  he  first  came  to  Rome  in  Nero's 
reign  ;  and  of  Origen  (f  254),  Avho  says  that  he  arrived  there 
at  the  close  of  his  life  ;^  and  of  the  Fraedicatio  Petri,  printed 
with  the  works  of  St.  Cyprian.^  His  "bishopric  "  at  Rome 
probably  consisted  only  in  his  efforts  about  the  time  of  his 
martyrdom  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  the  Church/  and  es- 
pecially of  the  Jewish  Christians.  Indeed,  there  is  much  to 
be  said  in  favour  of  the  view  that  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 
sections  of  the  Church  in  Rome  were  separated  by  unusu- 
ally deep  divisions,  and  possessed  their  separate  "presby- 
ters" or  "bishops"  for  some  years.  Such  a  fact  would  ac- 
count for  some  confusion  in  the  names  of  the  first  two  or 
three  Bishops  of  Rome.  Eusebius — following  Irenaeus  and 
Epiphanius — says  that  the  first  Bishops  of  Rome  were  Peter, 
Linus,  Cletus  or  Anencletus,  and  Clement.^  But  Hippoly- 
tus  (a.d.  .225)  seems  to  regard  Cletus  and  Anencletus  as  two 
different  persons,  and  places  Clement  before  Cletus  ;  and 
Tertullian  (f  218)  says  that  Clement  was  ordained  by  St. 
Peter. -^ 

The  notion  of  the  Apostle's  crucifixion  head  downwards 
is  derived  from  a  passing  allusion  in  Origen,  and  seems  to 
contradict  an  expression  of  Tertullian.'  It  was  possibly 
suggested  by  an  erroneous  translation  of  some  Latin  ex- 
pression for  capital  punishment.  At  any  rate,  it  stands  con- 
demned as  a  sentimental  anachronism,  bearing  on  its  front 
the  traces  of  later  and  more  morbid  forms  of  piety  rather 
than  the  simple  humility  of  the  Apostles,  who  rejoiced  in 
all  things  to  imitate  their  Lord.^  Those  who  accept  these 
legends  must  do  so  on  the  authority  of  an  heretical  novel, 
written  with  an  evil  tendency,  not  earlier  than  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century ;  or  else  on  that  of  the  apocryphal  Acta 
Petri  ct  Pauli^  which  appeared  at  a  still  later  date.  All 
that  we  can  really  learn  about  the  closing  years  of  St.  Peter 


'  T-actant.  Dc  ]\Tort.  Persrc.  2.  2  Qrigen  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  i. 

^  Cypriani,  Oj>J>.,  p.  139,  ed.  Rigalt. 

''  Clemens  Rumanus,  third  bishop  of  Rome,  speaks  even  more  of  St.  Paul  than  of  St.  Peter 
{Ep.  ad  Coy.  v.). 

•''  Euseb.  //.  F..  iii.  2,  4,  and  21  ;  Iren.  ap.  Euseb.  //.  E.  v.  6. 

^  Tort.  De  Praesc.  f/aeret.  32. 

^  "  Ubi  Vctrus  pas.iioni  dotiivticae  adaeqnatur,^^  De  Praesc.  36. 

8  Ncander,  P/antini^.  p.  377.  It  is  curious  to  w.-itch  the  growth  of  this  fiction.  It  begins 
with  Origen,  who  simply  says  that  it  was  done  "at  his  own  choice"  (a/>.  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  i). 
To  this  Rufinus  adds,  "  that  he  might  not  seem  to  be  equalled  to  his  Lord"  (ne  e.xaequari 
Domino  viderctur),  which  contradicts  the  saying  of  Tertullian,  th:it  "  he  was  equalled  to  his 
Lord  in  the  manner  o\  his  death."  Lastly,  St.  Jerome  .says  that  he  was  crucified  with  his 
head  towards  the  earth  and  his  legs  turned  upwards,  "  asserting  that  he  was  unworthy  to  be 
crucified  in  the  same  way  as  his  Lord  "  i^De  l^ir.  Jllusir.  i). 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.        79 

from  the  earliest  Fathers  may  be  summed  up  in  a  few  words, 
that  in  all  probability  he  was  martyred  at  Rome.' 

That  he  died  by  martyrdom  may  be  regarded  as  certain, 
because,  apart  from  tradition,  it  seems  to  be  implied  in  the 
words  of  the  Risen  Christ  to  his  penitent  Apostle.'  That 
this  martyrdom  took  place  at  Rome,  though  first  asserted 
by  Tertullian  and  Gains  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, may  (in  the  absence  of  any  rival  tradition)  be  accepted  , 
as  a  fact,  in  spite  of  the  ecclesiastical  tendencies  which 
might  have  led  to  its  invention  ;  but  the  only  Scriptural  au- 
thority which  can  be  quoted  for  any  visit  of  St.  Peter  to 
Rome  is  the  one  word  "The  Church  in  Babylon  saluteth 
you."^ 

If,  as  I  endeavour  to  show  in  the  Excursus,  there  is 
reasonable  certainty  that  Babylon  is  here  used  as  a  sort  of 
cryptograph  for  Rome,  the  fair  inferences  from  Scripture 
accord  with  the  statements  of  tradition  in  the  two  simple 
particulars  that  St.  Peter  was  martyred,  and  that  this  mar- 
tyrdom took  place  at  Rome.  These  inferences  agree  well 
with  the  probability  that  Silvanus,  of  whom  we  last  hear  in 
company  with  St.  Paul  at  Corinth,  and  St.  Mark,  for  whose 
assistance  vSt.  Paul  had  wished  during  his  Roman  imprison- 
ment, were  also  at  Rome,  and  were  now  acting  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision.  The  belief 
that  St.  Mark  acted  as  the  "interpreter"  (kpfx-qvevTrj^)  of  St. 
Peter  may  have  arisen  from  the  Apostle's  ignorance  of  the 
Tatin  language,  and  his  need  of  some  one  to  be  his  spokes- 
man during  his  residence  and  his  legal  trial  in  the  imperial 
city. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  ST.   PETER. 

"  Then  all  himself,  all  joy  and  calm, 

ITiou^h  for  a  while  his  hand  forego. 
Just  as  it  touched,  the  martyr's  palm, 
He  turns  him  to  his  task  below." — Keble. 

The  previous  chapter  has  led  us  to  conclude  that  the  First 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter  was  written  at  Rome.  The  ilaU  at 
which  it  .was  written  cannot  be  fixed  with  certainty."  The 
outburst  of  the  Neronian  persecution  took  place  in  a.d.  64, 
but  it  is  difficult  to   suppose  that  St.  Peter  arrived  acciden- 

'  See  Excursus  II.,  on  .St.  Peter's  Visit  to  Rome.  '  John  .\xi.  19. 

'  See  Excursus  III.,  on  the  Use  of  the  Name  Babylon  for  Rome. 


80  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

tally  in  Rome  on  the  very  eve  of  the  conflagration.  It  seems 
more  probable  that  he  was  either  brought  there  as  a  pris- 
oner, or  went  to  support  the  Jewish  Christians  during  the 
subsequent  pressure  of  their  terrible  afflictions.^  In  that 
case  he  wrote  the  First  Epistle  shortly  before  his  death, 
and  he  must  have  been  martyred  in  the  year  67  or  68,  about 
the  same  time  as  his  great  brother-Apostle,  St.  Paul,  with 
^w^ioni  he  is  always  united  in  the  earliest  traditions. 

That  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  is  genuine — a  precious 
relic  of  the  thoughts  of  one  of  Christ's  most  honoured  Apos- 
tles— w^e  may  feel  assured.  Its  authenticity  is  supported 
by  overwhelming  external  evidence.  The  Second  Epistle, 
whether  genuine  or  not,  is  at  any  rate  a  very  ancient  docu- 
ment, and  it  unhesitatingly  testifies  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  first.  ''The  First  Epistle  is,"  says  M.  Renan,  *'one  of 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  which  are  the  most  an- 
ciently and  the  most  unanimously  cited  as  authentic."  Pa- 
pias,  Polycarp,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  TertuUian, 
and  Origen,"  all  furnish  indisputable  evidence  in  its  favour.^ 
The  proof  that  the  writer  was  influenced  by  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  is  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  the 
age,  for  the  early  Christians,  as  was  perfectly  natural,  were 
in  the  habit  of  echoing  one  another's  thoughts.  Modern 
writers  do  exactly  the  same.  The  words  and  thoughts  of 
every  writer  who  makes  any  wide  or  serious  impression  are, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  adopted  by  others  exactly  as 
if  they  were  original  and  independent ;  and  this  is  true  to 
such  an  extent  than  an  author's  real  success  is  oftenjDbliterated 
by  its  very  universality.  The  views  which  he  originated 
come  to  he  regarded  as  commonplace  simply  because  all  his 
contemporaries  have  adopted  them.  But  this  was  still 
more  the  case  in  days  when  books  were  very  few  in  number. 
The  writings  of  the  Apostles  are  marked  by  mutual  resem- 
blances, and  the  works  of  men  like  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp, 
and  Clement  of  Rome,  consist  in  large  measure  of  a  mosaic 

^  St.  Paul  seems  to  have  been  absent  from  Rome  for  two  full  years  before  his  second  im- 
prisonment, and  durin<T  this  time  the  Christians  must  still  have  been  liable  to  oppression  and 
martyrdom,  even  after  the  first  attack  upon  tliem  had  spent  its  fury.  TertuUian  as.serts  that 
law.s  were  for  the  first  time  promulgated  against  the  Christians  by  Nero,  which  rendered 
Christianity  a  "  religio  illicita'''  t^ad  Natt.  74;  Apol.  5;  Sulp.  Sev.  Hisi.^  ii.  29,  §  3). 
This  is  rendered  very  doubtful  by  Pliny's  letter  to  Trajai.. 

2  See  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  25,  39 :  iv.  14,  v.  8,  vi.  25  ;  Polycarp,  Ep.  ad  Philip.  ;  Iren. 
contra  Haer.  iv.  9,  §  2  ;  Clem.  Alex.  Strovt.  iii.  8,  iv.  7  ;  Tert.  Scorp.  12.  J'esides  this, 
there  are  ni;jny  distinct  allusions  to  it  in  the  Kpistle  of  St.  Clement  to  the  Corinthians.  Little 
importance,  therefore,  can  be  attached  to  its  absence  from  the  Muratorian  Canon,  and  its 
rejection  by  Tlieodore  of  Mopsuestia. 

^  Keim  {Rom  und  Christenthunf,  p.  194"),  without  deigning  to  offer  a  reason,  assigns  it 
to  the  time  of  Trajan.     In  this  he  follows  Hilgenfeld. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.       8 1 

of  phrases  which  they  have  caught  up  from  their  predeces- 
sors. 

The  style  of  St.  Peter  in  this  Epistle  resembles-  in  many 
particulars  the  style  of  his  recorded  speeches.  It  is  charac- 
terised by  the  fire  and  energy  which  we  should  expect  to 
find  in  his  forms  of  expression  ;  but  that  energy  is  tempered 
by  the  tone  of  Apostolic  dignity,  and  by  the  fatherly  mild- 
ness of  one  who  was  now  aged,  and  was  near  the  close  of  a  life 
of  labour.  He  speaks  with  authority,  and  yet  with  none  of 
the  threatening  sternness  of  St.  James.  We  find  in  the  let- 
ter the  plain  and  forthright  spirit  of  the  man  insisting  again 
and  again  on  a  few  great  leading  conceptions.  The  subtle 
dialectics,  the  polished  irony,  the  involved  thoughts,  the  light- 
ning-like rapidity  of  inference  and  suggestion,  which  w^e  find 
in  the  letters  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Uncircumcision,  are  wholly 
wanting  in  him.  His  causal  connexions,  marking  the  natu- 
ral and  even  flow  of  his  thoughts,  are  of  the  simplest  charac- 
ter; and  yet  a  vigorously  practical  turn  of  mind,  a  quick 
susceptibility  of  influence,  and  a  large  catholicity  of  spirit, 
such  as  we  know  that  he  possessed,  are  stamped  upon  every 
page.  He  aims  throughout  at  practical  exhortation,  not  at 
systematic  exposition ;  and  his  words,  in  their  force  and  ani- 
mation, reflect  the  simple,  sensuous,  and  passionate  nature  of 
the  impulsive  Simon  of  w^hom  we  read  in  the  Gospels.  Even  if 
the  external  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Epistle  had  been  less 
convincing,  the  arguments  on  which  its  authenticity  has 
been  questioned  by  a  few  modern  theologians  have  been 
so  amply  refuted  as  to  establish  its  authorship  with  com- 
pleter certainty. 

I.  It  is  not  so  much  a  letter  as  a  treatise,  addressed  to 
Christians  in  general.  It  is  mainly  hortative,  and  its  exhor- 
tations are  founded  on  Christian  hope,  and  on  the  effects  of 
the  death  of  Christ.  It  is  not,  however,  a  scholastic  treatise, 
but  rather  a  practical  address,  at  once  conciliatory  in  tone 
and  independent  in  character.  It  may  with  equal  truth  be 
called  Pauline  and  Judaeo-Christian.  It  is  Judaeo-Christian 
in  its  sympathies,  yet  without  any  Judaic  bitterness.  It  is 
Pauline  in  its  expressions,  yet  with  no  polemic  purpose.  In 
both  respects  it  accords  with  the  character  and  circum- 
stances of  the  great  Apostle.  It  is  completely  silent  about  the 
Law,  and  enters  into  none  of  the  once  vehement  controver- 
sies about  the  relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Gospel  or  of  Faith 
to  Works.  There  is  no  predetermined  attempt  to  reconcile 
opposing   parties,  but   all   party  watchwords   are   either  im- 


S2  THE   EARLY    DAY5   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

partially    omitted,    or    are    stripped    of    their    sterner   anti- 
theses.' 

2.  One  proof  that  it  was  written  by  St.  Peter  results  from 
the  natural  way  in  -which  we  can  trace  the  influence  of  the 
most  prominent  events  which  occurred  during  his  associa- 
tion with  his  Lord.'^  He  does  not  mention  them  :  he  does 
not  even  in  any  marked  way  refer  to  them  ;  and  yet  we 
find  in  verse  after  verse  the  indication  of  subtle  re- 
miniscences such  as  7mis^  have  lingered  in  the  mind  of  St. 
Peter.  Christ  had  said  to  him,  "Thou  art  Peter,  and  on 
this  rock  will  I  build  my  Church,"  and  he  speaks  of  Christ 
as  "a  rock,"  the  corner-stone  of  a  spiritual  house,  and  of 
Christians  as  living  stones  built  into  it.  Christ  had  sternly 
reproved  him  when  he  made  himself  a  stumbling-block,  and 
he  sees  how  perilous  it  is  to  turn  the  Lord's  will  into  a  rock 
of  offence,^  using  the  two  very  words  which  lie  at  the  heart 
of  those  two  consecutive  moments  which  had  been  the  crisis 
of  his  life.''  When  he  had  rashly  pledged  his  Master  to  pay 
the  Temple  didrachm,  our  Lord  had  indeed  accepted  the 
obligation,  but  at  the  same  time  had  taught  him  that  the 
children  were  free  ;  and  St.  Peter  here  teaches  the  Churches 
that,  though  free,  they  were  still  to  submit  for  the  Lord's 
sake  to  ev'cry  human  ordinance.^  Bound  by  the  quantitative 
conceptions  of  Jewish  formalism,  he  had  once  asked 
whether  he  was  to  forgive  his  brother  up  to  seven  times, 
and  had  been  told  that  he  was  to  forgive  him  up  to  seventy 
times  seven  ;  and  he  has  so  well  learnt  the  lesson  as  to  tell 
his  converts  that  "Love  shall  cover  the  multitude  of  sins."  ^ 
In  answer  to  his  too  unspiritual  question,  "  what  reward  the 
Apostles  should  have  for  having  forsaken  all  to  follow 
Christ,"  he  had  heard  the  promise  that  they  should  sit  on 
thrones  ;  and  throughout  this  Epistle  his  thoughts  are  full 
of  the  future  glory  and  of  its  "  amaranthine  crown."''  He 
had  heard  Jesus  compare  the  "  days  of  Noah  "  to  the  days 
of  the  Son  of  Man,"  and  his  thoughts  dwell  so  earnestly 
upon  the  comparison  that  he  uses  the  expression  in  a  ivay 
which  unintentionally  limits  the  fulness  of  his  revelation." 


'  See  Schwegler,  Nacha/>.  Zeitalt.  ii.  22  ;   Pfleiderer,  PauUnism.  ii.  150,  E.  T. 

3  Matt.  xvi.  18  ;  i  Pet.  ii.  4-8.  This  peculiarity  of  the  Epistle  has  been  worked  out  and 
illustrated  by  no  one  so  fully  or  with  such  delicate  insight  as  by  Dean  Plumptre  in  his  edition 
of  the  Epistle  in  the  Cambridge  Kibie  for  schools,  p.  13,  seq. 

'  1  Pet.  ii.  8,  nirpa  (TKai'8d\ov, 

^  Matt.  xvi.  18,  (ttI  Tavnp  ttj  nerpn  ;  aj,  iTKavSi\6v  ixov  el. 

''  Matt.  xvii.  24-27  ;    1  Pet.  ii.  13-16.  *  Matt,  xviii.  22  ;  i  Pet.  iv.  8. 

'  .Matt.  xix.  28  ;   1  Pet.  i.  5,  v.  4.  «  Matt.  .\.\iv.  37. 

'■'  CoTipare  1  Pet.  iii.  20  with  iv.  6. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.        83 

He  had  seen  his  Lord  strip  off  His  upper  garment  and  tie  a 
towel  round  His  waist,  when,  wdth  marvellous  self-abase- 
ment, he  stooped  to  wash  Flis  Disciples'  feet  ;^  hence,  wiien 
he  wishes  to  impress  the  lesson  of  humility,  he  is  led  insensi- 
bly to  the  intensely  picturesque  expression  that  they  should 
*'  tie  on  humility  like  a  dress  fastened  with  knots."  ^  Per- 
haps, too,  from  that  washing,  and  the  solemn  lessons  to 
which  it  led,  he  gained  his  insight  into  the  true  meaning  of 
Baptism,  as  being  not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
but  the  intercourse  of  a  good  conscience  Avith  its  God.^  At 
a  very  solemn  moment  of  his  life  Christ  had  told  him  that 
Satan  had  desired  to  have  him  and  the  other  Apostles,  that 
he  might  sift  them  as  wheat,*  and  he  warns  the  Church  of 
the  prowling  activity  and  power  of  the  Devil,  using  respect- 
ing him  the  w^ord  "  adversary  "  (di/Tt8iKos),  which  occurs  no- 
where else  in  the  epistles,  but  more  than  once  in  the  sayings 
of  the  Lord.^  Again  and  again  on  the  last  evening  of  the 
life  of  Christ  he  had  been  bidden  to  w\atch  and  pray,  and 
had  fallen  because  he  had  not  done  so  ;  and  Avatchfulness  is 
a  lesson  on  w^iich  he  most  earnestly  insists."  He  had  been 
one  of  the  few  faithful  eye-witnesses  of  the  buffets  and 
wheals  inflicted  on  Christ  in  His  sufferings,  and  of  His  silence 
in  the  midst  of  reviling,  and.  to  these  striking  circumstances 
he  makes  a  very  special  reference."  He  had  seen  the  Cross 
uplifted  from  the  ground  w^ith  its  awful  burden,  and  respect- 
ing that  Cross  he  uses  a  very  peculiar  expression.'^  He  had 
heard  Jesus  w^arn  Thomas  of  the  blessedness  of  those  who 
having  not  seen  yet  believed,  and  he  quotes  almost  the  very 
words.^  He  had  been  thrice  exhorted  to  tend  and  feed 
Christ's  sheep,  and  the  pastoral  image  is  prominent  in  his 
mind  and  exhortations.^"  Lastly,  he  had  been  speciallv 
bidden  when  converted  to  strengthen  his  brethren,  and 
this  from  first  to  last  is  the  avowed  object  of  his  present 
letter.'' 

3.  Again  w^e  recognise  the  true  St.  Peter  by  the  extreme 
vividness  of  his  expressions.     It  has  been  a  unanimous  tra- 

^  John  xiii.  i-6.  -  x  Pet.  v.  5,  ey/co/x^ujcrao-de. 

3  I  Pet.  iii.  21.  For  tlie  "answer"  of  the  A.  V.  the  Revised  Version  suggests  "interroga- 
tion," "appeal,"  "inquiry,"  7>.  in/ra,  p.  138.  The  verb  eTrcpwrav  is  common  in  the  Gospeli, 
and  always  means  "  to  ask  further,"  but  the  substantive  does  not  occur  elsewhere  m  the  New 
Testament. 

'  1-uke  .\xii.  31.  Here  the  common  danger  of  the  Apostles,  "Satan  has  desired  to  hav3 
yoH  (vju.as),   .   .   .   but  I  have  prayed  for  tkee{(Ti)"  is  restored  by  the  Revised  Version. 

5  I  Pet.  y.  8  :   Matt.  v.  25  ;   Luke  xii.  58,  xviii.  3.  *  i  Pet.  v.  8,  seq, 

''  I  Pet.  ii.  20,  Ko\a.4)i^6ixevoi ;  23,  ovk  cii'TeAotSopet ;  24,  ov  toJ  (itaKiairi  olvtov. 

8  I  Pet.  ii.  24,  avriviyKiv  iv  TtS  o-wjiiaTi  eirX  to  ^vKov.      I',  in/ra,  p.  128. 

»  I  Pet.  i.  8.  lo'i  Pet.  ii.  25,  v.  2.  11  i  Pet.  v.  12. 


84  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

dition  in  the  Church  that  the  minute  details  recorded  by 
St.  Mark  are  due  to  the  fact  that  he  wrote  from  information 
ghven  him  by  St.  Peter.  Picturesqueness  is  as  evidently  a 
characteristic  of  the  mind  of  St.  Peter  as  it  is  of  the  mind 
of  St.  Mark.  In  St.  Mark  it  is  shown  by  touches  of  graphic 
description,  in  St.  Peter  by  words  which  are  condensed 
metaphors.' 

4.  Such  is  the  close  analogy  betw^een  the  thoughts  and 
expressions  of  the  Epistle  and  those  Avhich  the  Gospel 
story  of  the  writer  would  have  led  us  to  expect.  Nor  is  the 
resemblance  between  the  speeches  of  the  St.  Peter  of  the 
Acts  and  the  style  of  the  St.  Peter  of  the  Epistle  less  strik- 
ing. As  in  the  Acts  so  in  the  Epistle,  he  refers  to  Isaiah's 
metaphor  of  the  rejected  corner-stone  ;^  in  both  the  witness 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  prominent  f  in  both  he  speaks  of  the 
Cross  as  "the  tree";*  in  both  he  dwells  on  the  position  of 
the  Apostles  as  "witnesses  ;"  ^  in  both  he  puts  forward  the 
death  of  Christ  as  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  ;  ®  in  both  the 
Resurrection  is  made  the"  main  ground  of  faith  and  hope  ;' 
in  both  we  find  special  mention  of  God  as  the  Judge  of 
quick  and  dead  ;  ®  in  both  the  exhortation  to  repentance  is 
based  on  the  fact  of  man's  redemption  ;  ^  lastly,  in  both,  as 
a  matter  of  style,  there  is  a  prevalence  of  simple  relatival 
connexions,  and  as  a  matter  of  doctrine  there  is  the  repre- 
sentation of  God  as  one  who  has  no  respect  for  persons.'" 

5.  Is  it  not,  further,  a  very  remarkable  circumstance 
that  in  the  Acts  St.  Peter,  in  one  of  his  outbursts  of  impetu- 
ous boldness,  ventures  to  call  the  Law  "a  yoke  which 
neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  strong  enough  to  bear  ; " 
and  in  the  Epistle — though  he  was  a  Jew,  though  he  was 
closely  allied  to  St.  James  in  many  of  his  sympathies, 
though  he  strongly  felt  the  influence  of  the  pharisaic  Chris- 
tians at  Jerusalem,  though  he  borrow^s  the  symbols  of  the 
theocracy  to  a  marked  extent '^ — does  not  so  much  as  once 
mention  or  allude  to  the  Mosaic  Law  at  all  ?  Even  if  any 
of  these  peculiarities  standing  alone  could  be  regarded  as 
accidental,  their  aggregate  force  is  very  considerable  ;  nor 

'  I  Pet.  it.  2,  "guileless,  unadulterated  milk  ;  "  iv.  4,  "outpouring"  (excess  of  riot)  ;  iv.. 
15,  "  other-people' s-bishop"  (busybody  in  other  men's  matters). 

2  I  Pet.  ii.  7  ;  Acts  iv.  11.  3  t  Pet.  i.  12  ;  Acts  v.  32. 

*  I  Pet.  ii.  24  ;  Acts  v.  30,  x.  39.  ^  i  Pet.  i.  8,  v.  1  ;  Acts  ii.  32,  iii.  15,  x.  41. 
"  I  Pet.  i.  10;  Acts  iii.  18,  x.  43. 

''  1  Pet.  i.  3,  4.  21,  iii.  21 ;  Acts  ii.  32-36,  iii.  15,  iv.  10,  x.  40. 
*'  I  Pet.  iv.  5  ;  Acts  x.  42. 

•  I  Pet.  ii.  24  :  Acts  iii.  19-26.  1°  i  Pet.  i.  17  ;  Acts  x.  2. 
11  I  Pet.  i.  -J  ("sprinkling"),  18-20,  ii.  9,  to  (Ex.  xix.  5,  6). 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.        85 

do  \vc  think  it  possible  that  a  forger — even  if  a  forger  could 
otherwise  have  produced  such  an  epistle  as  this — could  have 
combined  in  one  short  composition  so  many  instances  of 
subtle  verisimilitude  ? ' 

6.  A  very  remarkable  feature  of  the  Epistle,  and  one 
which  must  have  great  prominence  in  leading  us  to  a  conclu- 
sion about  its  date,  characteristics,  and  object,  is  the  extent 
to  which  the  writer  has  felt  the  influence  both  of  St.  James 
and  of  St.  Paul."  No  one  can  compare  the  number  and  pe- 
culiarity of  the  identical  expressions  adduced  in  the  note, 
without  the  conviction  that  they  can  only  be  accounted  for 
by  the  influence  of  the  earlier  writers  on  the  later.  At  this 
epoch,  both  among  Jews  and  Christians,  there  was  a  free 
adaptation  of  phraseology  which  had  come  to  be  regarded 
as  a  common  possession.  That  St.  Peter  has  here"  been  the 
conscious  or  unconscious  borrower  may  be  regarded  as 
certain,  alike  on  chronological  and  on  psychological  con- 
siderations. If  the  Epistle  was  written  from  Rome,  we 
see  the  strongest  reasons  to  conclude  that  it  was  written 

^  To  these  might  be  added  i  Pet.  i.  13  ("girding  up  the  loins  of  your  mind")  :  compared 
with  Luke  xii.  35  ;  i.  12,  "to  stoop  and  look"  (napaKVijjai.)  ;  compared  with  Luke  xxiv.  12  ; 
ii.  15,  "  to  put  to  silence  "'((fujaoOf),  compared  with  Luke  iv.  35:  and  the  use  of  the  word 
o-KoAto?  (ii.  18),  as  compared  with  his  use  of  the  same  word  m  his  recorded  speech  (Acts  ii. 
40). 

2  r  pass  over  as  very  possibly  accidental  and  independent  the  few  points  of  resemblance 
between  the  language  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  (cf.  i  Pet.  ii.  19,  22  with  i  John  i.  7,  iii.  3, 
iv.  II,  and  i  Pet.  ii.  9  with  Rev.  i.  6) ;  nor  do  I  think  that  much  importance  can  be  attached 
to  the  few  coincidences  between  i  Pet.  and  Hebrews  (f.i;.,  i  Pet.  i.  2  and  Heb.  ix.  13  ;  i  Pet. 
ii.  2  and  Heb.  v.  12,  etc.).  I  regard  the  attempt  of  Weiss,  in  his  elaborate  Petyi)iiscke  Lehr- 
^eg'^iff,  to  prove  the  early  date  of  the  Epistle,  and  the  indebtedness  of  St.  Paul  to  its  expres- 
sions, as  misleading  and  untenable,  if  not  as  "  altogether  futile  "  (Pfleiderer,  Faulinism.  ii. 
150).  He  has  found  very  few  followers  in  his  opinion.  The  resemblances  are  mainly  to  the 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Ephesians 


I  Pet.    i. 

I 

Eph. 

1.    4-7 

I  Pet.    i. 

3 

Eph. 

i-     3 

I  Pet.    i. 

14 

Eph. 

ii.    8 

Rom.   xii. 

2 

1  Pet     ii. 

6-10 

Rom.     ix. 

25-33 

I  Pet.    ii. 

II 

Rom.    vii. 

23 

I  Pet.    ii. 

13 

Rom.  xiii. 

1-4 

I  Pet.    ii. 

18 

Eph. 

vi.    5 

I  Pet.  iii. 

I 

Eph. 

V.  22 

I  Pet.  iii. 

9 

Rom.  xyi. 

17 

I  Pet.  iii. 

22 

Eph. 

i.  20 

Rom.  viil. 

34 

I  Pet.  iv. 

I 

Rom.    yi. 

6 

I  Pet.  iv. 

10 

Rom.   xii. 

6 

I  Pet.  v. 

I 

Rom.  viii. 

18 

I  Pet.   V. 

5 

Eph. 

V.  21 

The  chief  resemblances  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  James  will  be  found  in  the  following 
passages  : — 

I  Pet.    i.    6-7  James    i.    2-4 

I  Pet.    i.  24  James    i,  10 

I  Pet.  iv.    8  James   v.  20 

I  Pet.    V.    5,  9  James  iv.    6,  7,  10 

The  supposed  parallels  between  the  Epistle  and  those  to  Timothy  and  Titus  arc  not  real 
parallels,  but  arise  from  similarity  of  subject  (i  Pet.  iii.  i.  v.  i,  xeg.).  There  is  nothing  in 
these  similarities  to  discredit  the  authenticity  of  the  Epistle,  and  the  absence  of  Johannine 
phrases  is  another  proof  of  its  antiquity. 


86  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

later  thaiji  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  therefore 
after  the  death  of  St.  James.  The  manner  in  which  St. 
Peter  writes  shows  that  he  is  often  accepting  the  phrase- 
ology of  others,  but  infusing  into  their  language  a  some- 
what different  shade  of  meaning.  When  we  consider  the 
extreme  plasticity  of  St.  Peter's  nature,  the  emotional  im- 
pressiveness  and  impetuous  receptivity  which  characterise 
his  recorded  acts  ;  when  we  remember,  too,  that  it  was  his 
habit  to  approach  all  subjects  on  the  practical  and  not  on 
the  speculative  side,  and  to  think  the  less  of  distinctions  in 
the  form  of  holding  the  connnon  faith,  because  his  mind  was 
absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  that  glorious  Hope  of 
which  he  is  pre-eminently  the  Apostle, — we  find  an  addition- 
al reason  for  accepting  the  Epistle  as  genuine.  We  see  in 
it  the  simple,  unsystematic,  practical  synthesis  of  the  com- 
plementary— but  not  contradictory — truths  insisted  on  alike 
by  St.  Paul  and  St.  James.  St.  Peter  dwells  more  exclusive- 
ly than  St.  Paul  on  moral  duties  ;  he  leans  more  immediate- 
ly than  St.  James  on  Gospel  truths. 

7.  There  is  no  material  difficulty  in  his  acquaintance 
with  these  writings  of  his  illustrious  contemporaries.  Among 
the  small  Christian  communities  the  letters  of  the  Apostles 
were  eagerly  distributed.  The  Judaists  would  have  been 
sure  to  supply  St.  Peter  with  the  letter  of  the  saintly  Bishop 
of  Jerusalem  ;  and  such  companions  as  Mark  and  Silvanus, 
both  of  whom  had  lived  in  intimate  relationship  with  St. 
Paul,  and  of  whom  the  former  had  been  expressly  mentioned 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  could  not  have  failed  to 
bring  to  St.  Peter's  knowledge  the  sublimest  and  most  heav- 
enly of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  antagonism  in  which 
St.  James  and  St.  Paul  had  been  arrayed  by  their  hasty  fol- 
lowers would  have  acted  with  St.  Peter  as  an  additional  rea- 
son for  using  indiscriminately  the  language  of  them  both.  It 
was  time  that  the  bitterness  of  controversies  should  cease, 
now  that  the  Church  was  passing  through  the  fiery  storm 
of  its  first  systematic  persecution.  It  was  time  that  the 
petty  differences  within  the  fold  should  be  forgotten  when 
the  howling  wolves  were  leaping  into  its  enclosure  from 
without.  The  suffering  Christians  needed  no  impassioned 
arguments  or  eager  dialectics  ;  they  mainly  needed  to  be 
taught  the  blessed  lessons  of  resignation  and  of  hope.  These 
are  the  keynotes  of  St.  Peter's  Epistle.'  ,  As  they  stood  de- 

^  Resignation.,  1  Pet.  i.  6,  ii.  13-25,  iii.  1,  9-12,  17,  18,  iv.  1-4,  v.  6;  //o/e,  i  Pet.  i.  4,  12, 
13,  iv.  6,  7,  V.  1,  4,  6,  10,  II. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.        8/ 

fenceless  before  their  enemies,  he  points  them  to  the  patient 
and  speechless  anguish  of  the  Lamb  of  God/  Patient 'en- 
durance in  tiie  present  would  enable  them  to  set  an  example 
even  to  their  enemies  ;  the  hope  of  the  future  would  cliangc 
their  very  sorrows  into  exultant  triumph. ■  In  the  great 
battle  which  had  been  set  in  array  against  tliem,  Hope 
should  be  their  helmet  and  Innocence  their  shield."' 

8.  And  yet  in  teaching  to  his  readers  these  blessed  les- 
sons St.  Peter  by  no  means  loses  his  own  originality.  The 
distinctions  between  the  three  Apostles— distinctions  be- 
tween their  methods  rather  than  their  views — may  be  seen  at 
a  glance.  They  become  salient  when  we  observe  that  where- 
as St.  James  barely  alludes  to  a  single  event  in  the  life  of 
Christ,  St.  Peter  makes  every  truth  and  exhortation  hinge 
on  His  example,  His  sufferings.  His  Cross,  His  Resurrec- 
tion, and  His  exaltation  ;*  and  that  whereas  St.  Peter  is 
j:^reatly  indebted  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  yet  makes 
no  use  of  St.  Paul's  central  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
I'^aith.  Thus  even  when  he  is  influenced  by  his  predeces- 
sor's phraseology,  he  is  occupied  with  somewhat  different 
conceptions.  The  two  Apostles  hold,  indeed,  the  same 
truths,  but,  to  the  eternal  advantage  of  the  Church,  they  ex- 
press them  differently.  Antagonism  between  them  there 
was  none  ;  but  they  were  mutually  independent.  The  orig- 
inality of  St.  Peter  is  not  only  demonstrated  by  the  sixty 
isolated  expressions  {hapax  legomend)  of  his  short  Epistle, 
but  also  by  his  modification  of  many  of  St.  Paul's  thoughts 
in  accordance  with  his  own  immediate  s{)iritual  gift.  That 
gift  was  the  xapto-/xa  KVySepvTJcrcws — that  power  of  administra- 
tive wisdom  which  made  his  example  so  valuable  to  the 
Infant  Church.  It  was  worthy  of  his  high  position  and  au- 
thority to  express  the  common  practical  consciousness  of 
the  Christian  Church  in  a  form  which  avoided  party  disa- 
greements. The  views  of  St.  Paul  are  presented  by  St. 
Peter  in  their  every-day  bearing  rather  than  in  their  spiritual 
depths  ;  and  in  their  moral,  rather  than  their  mystical  sig- 
nificance. St.  Peter  adopts  the  views  of  his  great  brother 
Apostles,  but  he  clothes  them  in  simpler  and  in  conciliatory 
terms.*  And  if  these  phenomena,  from  their  very  delicacy, 
constitute  an  almost  irresistible  proof  of  the  genuineness  of 


J  I  Pet.  i.  19,  ii.  22-25.  2  Joy,  I  Pet.  i.  6,  8,  iv.  13,  14, 

3  hinocence^  i  Pet.  i.  13-16,  22,  ii.  i,  2,  11,  12,  iii.  13,  15,  21,  iv.  15. 

*  I  Pet.  i.  3,  7,  13,  iii.  22,  iv.  11,  13. 

^  I  Pet.  i.  12,  25,  V.  12  (comp.  i  Cor.  xv,  i). 


88  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  Epistle,  how  decisive  is  the  evidence  which  they  furnish 
that  there  was  none  of  that  deadly  opposition  between  the 
adherents  of  Kephas  and  of  Paul  which  has  been  assumed 
as  the  true  key  to  the  Apostolic  history  !  How  certain  is  it 
that  "the  wretched  caricature  of  an  Apostle,  a  thing  of 
shreds  and  patches,  which  struts  and  fumes  through  those 
Ebionite  romances,  would  not  have  been*  likely  to  write  with 
thoughts  and  phrases  essentially  Pauline  flowing  from  his 
pen  at  every  turn."  ^ 

9.  It  is  important  and  interesting  to  illustrate  still 
more  fully  this  indebted  yet  indepe?ident  attitude  of  the  Apostle  ; 
this  tone  at  once  receptive  and  original,  at  once  firm  and 
conciliatory,  by  which  he  was  so  admirably  qualified  to  be 
the  Apostle  of  Catholicity.^ 

i.  We  see  it  at  once  in  the  language  which  he  uses  about 
Redemptioti.  St.  Peter,  of  course,  held,  as  definitely  as  St. 
Paul,  that  "Christ  suffered  for  sin,  once  for  all,  the  just  on 
behalf  of  the  unjust ;  "  ^  that  "He  Himself,  in  His  own  body, 
took  up  our  sins  on  to  the  cross  ;  "  ^  that  we  were  "  ransomed 
with  the  precious  blood  as  of  a  lamb  blameless  and  spotless, 
even  of  Christ."^  But  divine  truth  is  many-sided  and  in- 
finite ;  and  whereas  St.  Paul  mainly  dwells  on  the  death  of 
Christ  as  delivering  us  from  the  Law,  and  from  the  curse  of 
the  Law  and  from  a  state  of  guilt,  St.  Peter  speaks  of  it 
mainly  as  a  liberation  from  actual  immorality  :®  a  ransom 
from  an  empty,  traditional,  earthly  mode  of  life  ; '  a  means 
of  abandoning  sins  and  living  to  righteousness: — and  these 
are  to  him  the  consequences  which  are  specially  involved  in 
that  more  general  conception  that  Christ  died  "to  lead  us 
to  God."®  And  besides  this  different  aspect  of  the  object 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  the  means  by  which  that  object  is  ef- 
fected are  also  contemplated  from  a  different  point  of  view. 
In  St.  Paul's  theology  the  Christian  so  closely  partakes  in 
the  death  of  Christ  that,  by  that  death,  the  flesh — the  carnal 
principle  of  all  sin — is  slain   within  him  ;  ^  the  old  man  is 

1  Plumptre,  St.  Peter,  p.  72. 

^  Weiss's  Lehrbegriff  is  entirely  vitiated  by  his  capricious  effort  to  make  out  that  St. 
Peter  was  tho  original  author  of  the  thoughts  which  he  adopted  from  others. 

3  I  Pet.  iii.  18,  Trepi.  ajoiapTiwv  .   .  .  wirep  ahirMV. 

■*  I  Pet.  ii.  24  ;  on  this  difficult  verse,  vide  i/i/ra,  p.  i6t.  ^  i  Pet.  i.  rS,  19. 

^  I  Pet.  i.  t8,  €k  t^?  fxaTaia<;  avacrrpo^^s  naTpoirapoSoTov. 

'  I  Peuii.  2.4,  iva  rat?  aiiapTiai?  awoyei'OiJ.fvoL  TJj  8LKaio<Tvvr]  ^rffftofxev.  Mark  alike  the 
resemblance  to,  and  the  (lifftrence  from,  tiie  words  of  the  discourse  which  the  Apostle  had 
heard  from  the  lips  of  St.  Paul  at  a  moment  of  deep  personal  humiliation  (Gal.  ii.  19,  20), 
"  for  I_,  through  the  Law,  died  unto  the  Law  that  I  might  live  unto  God.  I  have  been  cruci- 
fied with  Christ  ;  yet  I  live."  We  have  in  St.  Peter  the  essential  Pauline  thought  without 
llie  intensity  of  the  Pauline  expression. 

8  I  Pet.  iii.  18  ;  c/.  Rom.  v.  2  ;  Eph.  ii.  18  ;  Ueb.  x.  19. 

'  Rom.  vi.  12-1/,,  viii.  3;  GaU  v.  24  ;  2  Cor.  v.  14. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.        89 

crucified  with  Clirist,  and  the  new  man,  the  hidden  man 
of  the  heart,  tlie  spiritual  nature,  lives  the  life  of  Christ  by 
mystical  union  with  Him.  Now,  St.  Peter  uses  expressions 
which  at  once  remind  us  of  those  used  by  St.  Paul,  but  he 
uses  them  with  a  different  scope.  He  too  speaks  of  ''a 
communion  with  the  sufferings  of  Christ,"  '  but  it  is  only  in 
the  literal  sense  of  suffering  ; "  and  he  never  distinctly  touches 
on  (though  he  may  doubtless  assume  and  pre-suppose)  the 
mystery  of  the  Christian's  identity  with,  incorporation  with, 
the  life  and  death  of  the  Saviour.  Christ's  sufferings  are 
set  forth  as  producing  their  effect  by  the  moral  power  of 
example,  so  that  His  life  of  suffering  and  obedience  is  as 
the  copy  over  which  we  are  to  write,  the  track  in  Avhich  we 
are  to  walk  ;  and  so  we  are  to  be  released  from  sin  by  the 
imitation  of  Christ/  "He  that  hath  died,"  says  St.  Paul, 
"hath  been  justified  from  sin,"  "  meaning  by  this  that  he 
who  by  baptism  (vi.  4)  has  been  buried  with  Christ  into  His 
death,  has  also  by  baptism  risen  with  Him  into  a  new  life  of 
communion,  in  which  God's  righteousness  has  become  man's 
justification.  St.  Paul  means,  in  fact,  all  the  deep  truth 
which  he  sets  forth  mystically  in  Rom.  vi.  i — 15,  and  -which 
he  explains  through  the  remainder  of  that  chapter  by  more 
popular  metaphors.  Now,  St.  Peter,  in  words  which  are 
doubtless  an  echo  of  St.  Paul's  language,  says  that  "  he  who 
hath  suffered  in  the  flesh  hath  ceased  from  sin  ; "  ^  but  the 
practical  intellect  of  St.  Peter  had  no  resemblance  to  the 
deeper  genius  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  meaning  of  his  words,  as 
developed  in  the  following  verses,  is  simply  the  truth  that 
the  suffering  life  of  the  Christian  has  in  it  all  the  blessed- 
ness of  trial  ;  and  that,  just  as  the  luxury  and  surfeit  of  hea- 
then life  (verse  3)  is  essentially  a  state  of  sin,  so  the  trials 
borne  by  the  Christian  warrior  who  is  armed  with  the  mind 
of  Christ,  naturally  put  an  end  to  the  seductiveness  of  sin. 
St.  Paul  d\vells  most  on  deliverance  from  guilty  St.  Peter  on 
deliverance  from  sifi.  With  St.  Paul  the  death  of  Christ  is 
the  means  of  expiation  ;  with  St.  Peter  it  is  more  promi- 
nently a  motive  of  amendment.  St.  Paul,  in  Rom.  vi.  i — 
15,  writes  like  a  profound  theologian.  St.  Peter,  in  iv.  i — 
4,  is  using  the  simpler  language  of  a  practical  Christian. 
The  union  between  the  Christian  and  the  death  of  Christ, 


1  I  Pet.  iv.  13.  _     2  As  in  Rom.  viii.  13. 

3  See  Rom.  vi.  1  ;   i  Pet.  ii.  21,  'S.piVTO';  eTraOev  inep  vfiiov,  vis.lv  UTToA.iju.Trdfujv  viroypatiixov 
Iva  aKoXovOriariTe  Tois  Ixveaiv  avTOv,  with  the  context  of  the.se  passages. 

4  Rom.  vi.  7.  6  I  Pet,  iv.  i. 


90  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

in  St.  Paul  is  an  i7iner  union.  It  St.  Peter  the  connexion  is 
more  outward — a  connexion  which  rather  invites  our  obe- 
dience than  modifies  our  inmost  nature.^ 

ii.  We  shall  see  similar  differences  in  the  use  of  other 
words.  Faith^  for  instance,  is  a  prominent  word  with  St. 
Peter, '^  but  neither  he  nor  any  other  writer  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament uses  it  in  that  unique  and  transcendent  sense  which 
is  peculiar  to  St.  Paul.  With  St.  Paul,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  it  comes  to  mean  an  absolute  oneness  with  Christ.'^  St. 
Peter,  like  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
like  St.  Clement,  uses  it  as  ^'the  substance  of  things  which 
are  hoped  for — the  conviction  of  unseen  realities."  *  It  is, 
in  fact,  *'a  confidence  in  the  promises  of  God."^  It  is 
hence  nearly  allied  to  Hope.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
the  main  object  of  faith  is  God's  redeeming  favour  evidenced 
by  Christ's  death  ;  ^  in  St.  Peter  faith  is  mainly  directed  to 
the  future  salvation,  of  which  Christ's  resurrection  is  a 
pledge,  and  to  which  His  sufferings  are  a  means.  And 
although  St  Peter  dwells  so  much  on  good  works,  that  ''to 
do  good  "  {ayaOonoikiv)  occurs  no  less  than  nine  times  in  his 
Epistle,^  yet  he  is  not  in  the  least  endeavouring  to  prove 
any  theory  of  Justification  by  works,  but  simply  regards  good 
works  as  St.  Paul  does,  namely,  as  the  natural  issue  of  the 
Christian  calling.  Nor,  when  he  speaks  of  fear^  in  i.  17," 
is  there  intended  to  be  any  opposition  to  Rom.  viii.  15,^  any 
more  than  there  is  in  i  John  iv.  18.'"  The  "  fear  "  spoken  of 
by  St.  Peter  is  only  a  fear  of  falling  away  from  grace. 
There  is  no  contradiction  between  the  Apostles,  but  there 
is  a  different  gleam  in  their  presentation  of  the  ''many-col- 
oured wisdom  "  "  of  God. 

iii.  Again,  we  see  a  difference  respecting  Regeneration 
and  Baptism^  and  here  once  more  St.  Peter's  view  is  pre- 
dominantly moral  and  general,  St.  Paul's  is  mystic  and  dog- 
matic. Regeneration  with  St.  Paul  means  a  new  creation, 
the  beginning  of  a  life  w^hich  is  not  the  human  and  indi- 
vidual life,  but  which  is  "  Christ  in  us."  But  St.  Peter,  like 
St.  James,  regards  this  new  birth  as  produced  by  the  living 

»  See  Reu.ss,  Theol.  Chrit.  ii.  300. 

2  I  Pet.  i.  5,  (}>povpovixeyovi  Sia  jrio-TCMs;  7  ;  9.  rb  /e'Ao?  t^s  n-tcrrcw?,  awTijpiai'  \}jvx(i>v ; 
21 ;  V.  9,  (TTepeol  T?)  TTiaret.  3  See  Li/e  and  IVork  0/ St.  Paul,  ii.  209,  seq. 

■^  I  Pet.  i.  8",  Heb.  xi.  i  ;  Clem.  Ep.  ad  Cor.  xxvi.,  xxvii.;  Pfleiderer,  Paulinism.  iu 
140.  5  I  Pet.  i.  3,  13,  iii.  15.  *  Rom-  iv.  25. 

^  I  Pet.  ii.  14,  15,  20,  iii.  6,  11,  13,  16,  17,  iv.  19. 

8  '*  Pass  the  time  of  your  sojourning  here  in  fear." 

*  "  Ye  received  not  tlie  spirit  of  Ijondage  again  to  fear." 

10  <<  Perfect  love  casteth  out  fear."  "  woAun-oi'xtAof  ao^ia.. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER  S  FIRST  EPISTLE.        9 1 

and  abiding  wo7-d  of  God,  producing  the  purification  which 
springs  from  obedience  to  the  truth,  and  having  as  its  ob- 
jects a  living  hope  and  a  sincere  brotherly  love/  And 
wiiereas  Baptism  is,  with  St.  Paul,  the  beginning  of  the  new 
birth,  and  the  communication  of  the  Spirit,  with  St,  Peter, 
on  the  other  hand — whatever  may  be  the  exact  meaning  of 
the  difficult  expression  which  he  uses" — it  is  clear  that  his 
thoughts  are  mainly  fixed  on  the  moral  obligations  which 
enter  into  baptism  as  being  a  type  of  our  deliverance  by 
means  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

10.  But  while  St.  Peter  brings  down,  as  it  were,  the 
transcendental  divinity  of  St.  Paul  from  heaven  to  earth — 
from  the  regions  of  a  sublime  theology  to  those  of  practical 
Christian  life — while  the  diversities  of  gifts  imparted  by  the 
same  Spirit  thus  meet  the  individual  needs  of  every  Chris- 
tian— while  the  contemplation  of  truth  from  many  different 
points  of  view  enables  us  to  understand  its  solidity  and  per- 
fectness — St.  Peter  has  one  doctrine  which  is  almost  peculiar 
to  himself,  and  which  is  inestimably  precious.  In  this  he 
not  only  ratifies  some  of  the  widest  hopes  w^iich  it  had  been 
given  to  his  brother  Apostle,  if  not  to  reveal,  at  least  to 
ifitimate,  but  he  also  supplements  these  hopes  by  the  new 
aspect  of  a  much-disregarded,  and,  indeed,  till  recent  times 
half-forgotten,  article  of  the  Christian  creed  ; — I  mean  the 
object  of  Christ's  descent  into  Hades. ^  In  this  truth  is  in- 
volved nothing  less  than  the  extension  of  Christ's  redeem- 
ing work  to  the  dead  who  died  before  His  coming.  Had 
the  Epistle  contained  nothing  else  but  this,  it  would  at  once 


1  I  Pet.  i.  22,  23  ;  Jas.  i.  i8. 

2  I  Pet.  iii.  21,  inep(i>Ti)fia  aya9^<;  trvfeiSrjcrews  ei?  Q)€OV.  It  has  been  taken  to  mean  (i) 
"pledge"  "contract"  {appa^uiv,  euexvpov.  CEcum.;  stipulation  Luther),  as  TertulUan  calls 
baptism  obligatio  fidei,  sf>onsio  salutis,  Jidei pactio^  but  this  seems  only  to  be  a  later  Hyzan- 
tine  meaning  of  the  word;  or  (2)  "  the  question  and  ansiver  of  baptism" — the  promise  to 
renounce  the  devil,  etc.,  and  so  to  keep  a  good  conscience  ['"'' Aninta  nott  laziatione  sed 
respojisione  saucitur"  Tert.  de  Resurr.  Cam.  48) — but  evepujTriiJ.a  cannot  bear  this  sense  ; 
or  (3)  joining  iirepuirqixa  with  ei?  ®e.ov,  and  taking  the  phrase  enepcoTav  es  in  2  Kings  xi.  7 
as  explaining  it — "the  inquiry  after  God  of  a  good  conscience  ;  "  or  (4)  ^''request  to  God /or 
a  good  conscience."  I'aking  enepuiTrifia  in  this  its  natural  sense,  (the  sense  it  bears  in  the 
only  passage  of  the  LXX.  in  which  it  occurs,  7>ide  Dan.  iv.  14.)  I  believe  this  last  view  to  be 
correct ;  but  if  ei?  @ebv  be  taken  with  trvvetfirjcri?,  as  in  Acts  xxiv.  16,  then  it  will  be  "  the 
entreaty  for  a  good  conscietice  toivards  Cod.'"  THis,  indeed,  may  seem  an  inadequate 
explanation  of  the  saving  power  of  baptism,  but  so  (at  first  sight)  is  every  other  sense  which 
the  words  will  at  all  bear;  and  when  we  remember  the  practical  and  non-mystical  character 
of  the  Apostle's  mind,  much  of  the  difficulty  disappears,  and  the  entreatj'  nivolves  its  own 
fulfilment.  ['I'he  Revised  Version  renders  the  word  '"interrogation,"  and  in  the  margin  sug- 
gests the  alternatives  of  "inquiry"  or  "appeal."  Archbishop  Leighton  says,  "The  word 
intends  the  whole  correspondence  of  the  conscience  with  God.  .  .  .  The  word  is  judicial, 
alluding  to  the  interrogation  used  in  law,  etc."]  _  ,.    •        \ 

3  Minor  original  specialities  are  "into  which  things  the  angels  desire  to  look"  (1.  12)  : 
Christ,  "the  chief  Shepherd"  (v.  4);  the  presentation  of  Christ's  stifferings  as  an  example 
(li.  21),  etc.     See  Davidson,  Introd.  i.  423,  and  for  peculiarities  of  phraseoiog>',  id.  p.  433. 


92  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

have  been  raised  above  the  irreverent  charge  of  being 
'^  secondhand  and  commonplace."  *  I  allude  of  course  to 
the  famous  passage  in  which  St.  Peter  tells  us  (iii.  19,  20) 
that  "  Christ  died  for  sins  once  for  all  that  He  may  lead  us 
to  God,  slain  indeed  in  the  flesh  but  quickened  in  the  Spirit, 
///  which  also  He  went  a7id  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison^  once 
disobedient^  when  the  long-suffering  of  God  was  waiting ^'^  in  the 
days  of  Noah,  during  the  preparing  of  the  ark,  by  entering  into, 
which  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  brought  safe  through  water. "^ 
So  far  is  this  from  being  a  casual  allusion,  that  St.  Peter 
returns  to  it,  as  though  with  the  object  of  making  its  mean- 
ing indisputably  plain.  When  he  speaks  of  the  perishing 
heathen,  who  shall,  after  lives  of  sin  and  self-indulgence, 
give  account  to  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead,  he  says — ^^For^ 
for  this  cause  also,  even  to  the  dead  was  the  Gospel  preached ;' 
adding,  as  though  to  preclude  any  escape  from  his  plain 
meaning,  '*  that  they  may  be  judged  according  to  men  in 
the  flesh,  but  may  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit."  * 
Few  words  of  Scripture  have  been  so  tortured  and  emptied 
of  their  significance  as  these.  In  other  passages  whole  theo- 
logical systems,  whole  ecclesiastical  despotisms,  have  been 
built  on  the  abuse  of  a  metaphor,  on  the  translation  of  rhet- 
oric into  logic,  on  the  ignorance  and  incapacity  which  will 
not  interpret  words  by  the  universal  rules  of  literary  criti- 
cism ;  and  yet  every  effort  has  been  made  to  explain  away 
the  plain  meaning  of  this  passage.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
precious  passages  of  Scripture,  and  it  involves  no  ambiguity, 
except  such  as  is  created  by  the  scholasticism  of  a  preju- 
diced theology.  It  stands  almost  alone  in  Scripture,  not  in- 
deed in  the  gleam  of  light  which  it  throws  across  the  awful 
darkness  of  the  destiny  of  sin,  but  in  the  manner  in  which 
it  reveals  to  us  the  source  from  which  that  gleam  of  light  has 
been  derived.  For  if  language  have  any  meaning  this  lan- 
guage means  that  Christ,  when  His  Spirit  descended  into 
the  lower  world,  proclaimed  the  message  of  salvation  to  the 
once  impenitent  dead.  In  the  first  indeed  of  the  two  al- 
lusions to  this  truth  the  preaching  is  formally  limited  to  those 
who  had  died  in  the  Deluge.  This  is  due  to  two  causes. 
St.  Peter's  mind  is  full  of  the  Deluge  as  a  type  of  the  world's 


1  Schwegler.  2  j^gg.  aTrffeSe'xeTO. 

3  In  my  Mercy  and  Judgiuent  fpp.  75-81)  I  have  given  (with  original  quotations)  a  full 
his'ory  of  the  exegesis  of  this  passage  in  the  Christian  Church.  What  may  be  called  the 
mythological  inlerences  from  it,  apart  from  the  blessed  truth  which  it  generally  indicates, 
may  be  found  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nicodemus. 

*  X  Pet.  iv.  6. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.        93 

lustration,  first  by  death  and  then  by  deliverance,  just  as 
baptism  is  a  type  of  death  unto  sin  and  the  new  life  unto 
righteousness.  Also  he  is  thinking  of  Christ's  comparison 
of  the  days  of  Noah  to  the  days  of  the  Son  of  Man.  But  it 
is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  antediluvian  sinners,  con- 
spicuous as  they  were  for  their  wickedness,  were  the  only 
ones  of  all  the  dead  who  were  singled  out  to  receive  the 
message  of  deliverance.  That  restricted  application  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  second  passage.  There  the  Apostle  shows  that 
he  had  only  referred  to  tliose  who  perished  in  the  Deluge  as 
striking  representatives  of  a  world  of  sinners,  judged  as  regards 
men  in  the  flesh,  but  living  as  regards  God  in  the  spirit. 
For,  in  referring  to  the  judgment  which  awaits  the  heathen, 
he  attempers  the  awful  thought  of  their  iniquities  and  of  the 
future  retribution  which  awaited  them  by  saying,  that,  with  a 
view  to  this  very  state  of  things  (ei's  toCto)  the  Gospel  was 
preached  to  the  dead  ; — in  order  that,  however  terrible 
might  be  the  judgments  which  would  befall  their  human 
nature,  the  hope  of  some  spiritual  share  in  the  divine  life 
might  not  be  for  ever  excluded  at  the  moment  of  death.  Of 
the  effects  of  the  preaching  nothing  is  said.  There  is  no 
dogma  either  of  universalism  or  of  conditional  immortality. 
All  details,  as  in  the  entire  eschatology  of  Scripture,  are 
left  dim  and  indefinite  ;  but  no  honest  man  who  goes  to 
Holy  Scripture  to  seek  for  truth,  instead  of  going  to  try  and 
find  whatever  errors  he  may  bring  to  it  as  a  part  of  his  theo- 
logical belief,  can  possibly  deny  that  there  is  ground  here 
to  mitigate  that  element  of  the  popular  teaching  of  Chris- 
tendom against  which  many  of  the  greatest  saints  and  theo- 
logians have  raised  their  voices.^  That  teaching  rests  with 
the  deadliest  weight  on  all  who  have  sufficient  imagination 
to  realise  the  meaning  of  the  phrases  in  which  they  indulge, 
and  sufficient  heart  to  feel  their  awfulness.  If  Christ 
preached  to  dead  men  who  were,  once  disobedient,  then  Scripture 
shows  us  that  the  moment  of  death  does  not  necessarily  in- 
volve a  final  and  hopeless  torment  for  every  sinful  soul.  Of 
all  the  blunt  weapons  of  ignorant  controversy  employed 
against  those  to  whom  has  been  revealed  the  possibility  of 
a  larger  hope  than  is  left  to  mankind  by  Augustine  or  by 
Calvin,  the  bluntest  is  the  charge  that  such  a  hope 
renders  null  the  necessity  for  the  work  of  Christ !  As 
if  it  were   not  this  very  hope  which  gives  to  the   love  of 


See  Mercy  a?id  Judgment,  pp.  16-57. 


94  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Christ  its  mightiest  eftectiveness !  We  thus  rescue  the 
work  of  redemption  from  the  appearance  of  having 
failed  to  achieve  its  end  for  the  vast  majority  of  those  for 
whom  Christ  died.  By  accepting  the  light  thus  thrown 
upon  the  ''descent  into  Hell,"  we  extend  to  those  of  the 
dead  who  have  not  finally  hardened  themselves  against  it 
the  blessedness  of  Christ's  atoning  work.  We  thus  com- 
plete the  divine,  all-comprehending  circuit  of  God's  uni- 
versal grace  !  In  these  passages,  as  has  been  truly  said, 
"  we  may  see  an  expansive  paraphrase  and  exuberant  vari- 
ation of  the  original  Pauline  theme  of  the  universalism  of 
the  evangelic  embassage  of  Christ  and  of  His  sovereignty 
over  the  world  ;  and  especially  of  the  passage  in  the  Philip- 
pians,'  where  all  they  that  are  in  heaven  and  on  the  earth, 
and  under  the  earthy  are  enumerated  as  classes  of  the  subjects 
of  the  exalted  Redeemer." 

But  alas  !  human  perversity  has  darkened  the  very  hea- 
vens by  looking  at  them  through  the  medium  of  its  own 
preconceptions ;  and  the  clear  light  of  revelation  has 
streamed  in  vain  upon  the  awfulness  of  the  future.  The 
attempts  to  make  the  descent  of  Jesus  into  Hades  a  visit 
merely  to  liberate  the  holy  patriarchs,  or  to  strike  terror 
into  the  evil  spirits,  are  the  unworthy  inventions  of  dogma- 
tic embarrassment.  The  interpretation  of  Christ's  "  preach- 
ing "  as  only  a  preaching  of  damnation'^  is  one  of  the  most 
melancholy  specimens  of  theological  hardness  trying  to 
blot  out  the  hope  of  God's  mercy  from  the  world  beyond 
the  grave.  "It  was,"  as  Reuss  says,  "far  better  than  all 
that :  it  was  for  the  living  a  new  manifestation  of  the  inex- 
haustible grace  of  God  ;  for  the  dead  a  supreme  opportunity 
for  casting  themselves  into  the  arms  of  His  mercy  ;  and 
finally,  for  Christian  theologians,  so  skilful  in  torturing  the 
letter,  and  so  blind  at  seizing  the  spirit,  it  might  have  been 
the  germ  of  a  sublime  and  fruitful  conception,  if  instead  of 
compressing  more  and  more  the  circle  of  life  and  light  by 
their  formulae  and  their  anathemas,  they  would  have  learnt 
from  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle  that  this  circle  is  illimit- 
able, and  that  the  life-giving  rays  which  stream  from  its 
centre  can  penetrate  even  the  most  distant  sphere  of  the 
world  of  spirits." 


>  Phil.  ii.  9,  II, 

'It  is   needless   to   say  that  in  tlie  N.  T.  Krtpvaaw  has  no  such  meaning,  and  the  paralla? 
passage,  iv.  6,  has  eirj-yyeAi'a^jj.     See  Clcin.  Alex-.  Strotu.  vi.  6. 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.       95 

Having  thus  seen  the  authenticity,  and  the  characteris- 
tics of  tlie  first  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  we  may  proceed  to  ask, 
What  was  its  object  ?  Clearly  it  was  not  meant  as  a  system 
of  theology.  Some  have  supposed  that  its  scope  was  directly 
conciliatory — that  by  borrowing  alike  from  St.  Paul  and  St. 
James,  and  endeavouring,  as  it  were,  to  make  them  both 
speak  with  the  same  mouth, ^  St.  Peter  wished  to  calm  the 
controversies  which  had  arisen,  and  to  show  that  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  whether  preached  by  Judaists  or  Paulinists,  was 
essentially  the  same.  Now  there  may  have  been  in  the 
mind  of  St.  Peter  some  such  undercurrent  of  intention. 
For  he  was  addressing,  among  others,  the  Churches  of  Ga- 
latia,  which  had  been  the  scene  of  burning  controversies  ; 
and  he  may  have  wished  by  his  silence  about  the  Law,  and 
his  omission  of  such  phrases  as  **  Justification  by  Faith,"  to 
show  that  the  essential  truths  of  Christianity  might  be  dis- 
engaged from  polemical  bitterness.  There  must  have  been 
something  intentional  in  this  silence,  for  no  one  can  read 
the  words  of  St.  Paul  in  Gal.  v.  13 — 

(i)  "  For  ye  were  called  for  freedom,  brethren, 

(2)  Only  not  freedo77i  as  a  handle  for  the  flesh, 

(3)  But  by  love  serve  (SovXevere)  one  another^'' 
side  by  side  with  those  of  St.  Peter,  in  ii.  16 — 

(i)   '' As  free, 

(2)  And  yet  not  usi?ig  your  freedom  as  a  veil  of  baseness, 

(3)  But  as  slaves  (SoOXoc)  of  God,'' — 

without  seeing  that  the  resemblance  is  more  than  acciden- 
tal.'^ The  identity  of  structure,  the  similarity  of  rhythm, 
the  echo  of  the  thought,  prove  decisively  that  St.  Peter  had 
read  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  It  could  not,  therefore, 
have  been  without  deliberate  purpose  that,  in  addressing 
Galatians  among  others,  he  assumes  without  the  least  con- 
troversial vehemence,  the  once  startling  proposition  that 
faithful  Gentiles  are  the  true  Jews,^  an  elect  race,  a  holy 
nation,  the  true  heritage  of  God,  and  even  the  true  priest- 
hood,'' while  yet  he  says  no  word  about  Mosaism,  or  about 
the  terms  of  communion  between  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Here, 
again,  we  may  recognise  the  exact  attitude  of  Peter  as  seen 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     He  is  a  sincere  and  even  a 

*  Reuss,  La  Thiol.  Chret.  ii.  294. 

2  The  quotation  is  further  interesting  as  being  made  from  an  Epistle  in  which  his  own  con- 
duct is  condemned.  3  j  pet.  iii.  6. 

•*  I  Pet.  ii.  5,  oiKOS  7ri'€v/aaTi/cb?,  Jepdrev/iAa  ayiov  ;  i  Pet.  ii.  9,  jSao-iAetor  Itparevfia  \cf. 
CShb  MisVttte,  Ex,  xix.  5,  6,  and  I.XX.),  k.t.A.  Xah<i  eis  irepiwotTjcri;'  [nVAO,  c/.  .Acts 
.\x.'a8).  ■'  ■' " 


95  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

scrupulous  Jew  ;  yet  he  had  been  divinely  taught  that  tHe 
practices  which  he  might  himself  continue  to  adopt  as  mat- 
ters of  national  obligation  were  in  no  sense  binding  on  the 
Gentiles,  and  that  their  freedom  did  not  place  them  in  a 
lower  position  in  the  eyes  of  God,  who  is  no  respector  of 
persons.  But  though  such  thoughts  may  have  been  in  his 
mind,  they  did  not  furnish  the  motive  of  his  address,  which 
was,  as  he  himself  says,  essentially  hortatory.  He  wrote  to 
testify  and  to  exhort ;  ^  to  confirm  the  converts  in- the  truths 
which  they  had  already  learnt  from  the  missions  of  St.  Paul 
and  his  companions,  and  to  comfort  them  under  persecution 
by  encouragements,  founded  on  the  hopes  of  which  they 
were  partakers,  and  on  the  example  and  effect  of  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ. 

As  in  other  instances,  the  question  has  been  raised 
whether  St.  Peter  intended  to  address  Jews  or  Gentiles  ; — 
and,  as  in  other  instances,  the  true  answer  seems  to  be — 
neither  class  exclusively.  The  Dispersion  of  which  he  is 
mainly  thinking  is  a  spiritual  one.  He  is  writing  to  all 
Christians  in  the  countries  wiiich  he  mentions.^  Why  he 
selected  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  and  did  not  include 
the  Churches  of  Syria,  Macedonia,  and  Achaia,  is  a  question 
which  we  cannot  solve,  seeing  that  both  in  Greece  and  in 
Syria  he  was  personally  known.  That  he  is  addressing 
Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  uncon- 
ventional reader  ;^  but  he  regards  them  as  alike  pilgrims 
and  sojourners  on  earth,  common  members  of  the  ideal 
Israel,  common  heirs  of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  *  Yet 
we  need  go  no  farther  than  the  first  line  of  his  letter,  with 
its  two  distinctively  Jewish  expressions  of  ''sojourners" 
{Toshabini)  and  "the  dispersion"  [Galootha),  to  show  that 
even  to  Gentiles  he  is  writing  with  the  feelings  and  habits 
of  a  Jew. 

It  seems  likely  that  the  Epistle  was  written  after  the  final 

^  I  Pet.  V.  12,  irapaKakijiv  /cai  eiT(,iJ.apTvplx)v  k.t.A. 

-  Weiss,  in  the  interests  of  his  arbitrary  theory  that  the  letter  is  one  of  the  earUcst  docu- 
ments of  Christianity,  tries  to  prove  that  it  was  addressed  exchisively  to  Jews.  His  argu- 
ments [Petr.  Lekrbegr.  115,  116)  are  entirely  inconclusive,  and  are  sufficiently  answered  in 
the  text.  This  view  has,  however,  found  many  supporters  in  all  ages,  as  Eusebius,  Didymus, 
Jerome,  Theophylact,  and  in  modern  times  Erasmus,  Calvin,  Grotius,  l^engel.  etc. 

3  See  I  Pet.  i.  14,  18,  lii.  6,  ii.  9,  10,  iv.  3,  4.  Many  doubtless  of  these  Gentiles  had  passed 
into  the  Churcli  through  the  portals  of  the  Synagogue.  Hence  they  would  find  no  difficulty 
in  the  casual  allusions  to  the  Old  Testament  (i.  15,  16,  23-25,  ii.  6,  19,  iii.  10,  iv.  18,  y.  5), 
which,  as  Immer  remarks  {N.  Test.  Theol.,  p.  477),  are  not  introduced  with  any  Rabbinic  re- 
finements. 

^  I  Pet.  i.  I,  iii.  6,  v.  9  Icf.  Heb.  xi.  13  ;  Phil.  iii.  20;  Gen.  xlvii.  9  ;  "^^^  Ps.  xxxix.  14)  ; 
"  fiachalath  J'l'/iova/i,^'  Jos.  xiii.  23.  etc.  Similarly,  Clemens  Komanus,  though  a  Gentile, 
talks  of  "our  lather,  Abraham." 


SPECIAL  FEATURES  OF  PETER'S  FIRST  EPISTLE.       97 

imprisonment  of  St.  Paul,  during  whose  activity  St.  Peter 
would  hardly  have  written  to  any  of  the  Churches  which 
had  been  exclusively  founded  by  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 
The  condition  of  the  Churches  addressed  accords  well  with 
such  a  supposition.  He  is  writing  to  those  who,  although 
their  faith  was  undergoing  a  severe  test  like  gold  tried  in 
the  fire,'  were  yet  mainly  liable  to  danger  rather  than  to 
death.  They  were  exposed  to  false  accusation  as  malefac- 
tors", to  revilings,^  threats,^  and  a  general  system  of  terror- 
ism and  suffering.^  Now  this  is  exactly  the  state  of  things 
which  must  have  existed  in  the  provinces  after  the  Neronian 
persecution.  That  crisis  marked  out  the  Christians  for  a 
special  hatred  above  and  beyond  what  they  experienced  as 
being,  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  a  debased  Jewish  sect.  It 
even  brought  into  prominence  that  name  of  "  Christians," 
which,  though  invented  by  the  jeering  populace  of  Antioch 
as  early  as  a.d.  44,  had  not  until  this  time  come  into  general 
vogue."  It  is  true  that  Orosius^  is  the  first  writer  who  as- 
serts that  the  persecution  extended  ''  through  all  the  prov- 
inces," and  there  is  no  authority  for  the  assertion  of  Tertul- 
lian  that  Nero  had  made  the  repression  of  Christians  a 
standing  law  of  the  Empire.^  Some  have  attempted  to 
prove  that  the  state  of  things  referred  to  could  only  have 
existed  during  the  persecution  of  Trajan  (a.d.  ioi)°  which  is 
of  course  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  Epistle  is  spurious. 
But  considering  that  we  find  the  traces  of  trials  at  least  as 
severe  as  those  to  which  St.  Peter  alludes  some  time  before 
the  Neronian  persecution  had  broken  out,'"  and  in  the  Apo- 
calyptic letters  to  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia  after  it  had 
broken  out,''  the  whole  argument  is  groundless.  The  mem- 
bers of  a  sect  which  was  ''  everyw^here  spoken  against,"  and 

1  I  Pet.  i.  7,  iv.  12.  -  I  Pet.  ii.  12,  15. 

3  I  Pet.  ii.  23,  iii.  9,  iv.  14.  *  x  Pet.  iii.  16,  eirr^pea^ovTe^.  _ 

5  I  Pet.  iii.  9,  14,  17,  iv.  15,  19.  Tacitus  counts  Christianity  among  the  shameful  things 
[pudenda)  which  flowed  Romewards  (comp.  Rom.  i.  16). 

•■•  See  my  Li/e  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  i.  298.  Tacitus  {Ann.  xv.  44)  uses  the  word 
"  C/iristianos"  with  something  of  an  apology.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  N.  T.  it  only  oc- 
curs three  times,  and  always  involves  a  hostile  sense  (Acts  xi.  26,  xxvi.  28),  as  it  does  in  iv.  16. 

■^  Oros.  vii.  11,  "/(?r  ^^wwr.s'/rOTvV/czrtJ  pari  per.secutione  cruciari  imperavit.''  The  Lusi- 
tanian  inscription  (Gruter,  p.  238  ;  Orelli,  730),  which  thanks  Nero  for  purging  the  province 
of  some  foreign  superstition  (novam  humano  generi  superstitionem),  is  now  given  up.  See 
Merivale,  i.  450  ;   Gieseler,  i.  28. 

"  Ad  Natt.  i.  7,  "sub  Nerone  damnatio  invaluit."  In  the  martyrologies,  we  read  of  mar- 
tyrs during  the  Neronian  persecution  at  Milan,  Aquileia,  Carthage,  etc.  ;  .nnd  St.  John  men- 
tions the  martyr  Antipas  by  name,  at  Pergamum  (Rev.  ii.  13),  besides  alluding  to  others  (Rev. 
xvi.  5). 

3  See  especially  Schwegler.  Nachai>.  Zeit.  II.  2-29 ;  Kostlin,  Jokann-Lehrbcgf.  472-481  ; 
Baur,  First  Three  Centuries,  i.  133. 

1"  For  instance,  in  i  Thess.  ii.  15,  iii.  4 ;  2  Thess.  i.  4,  iii.  2  ;   Phil.  i.  28,  30,  etc. 

"  Rev.  i.  9,  ii.  9,  10,  13,  vi.  9,  11,  xviii.  24,  xx.  4. 


98 


THE   EARLY   DAYS   OE   CHRISTIANITY. 


for  which  even  the  worthiest  Gentile  writers  can  find  no 
better  epithet  than  "  execrable  " — a  sect  which  from  the  first 
was  supposed  to  involve  a  necessary  connection  with  the 
deadliest  crimes^ — a  sect  which  from  the  earliest  days  seems 
to  have  been  exposed  to  the  insults  of  the  vilest  mural  cari- 
catures^— were  certainly  as  liable  in  the  later  years  of  Nero 
as  they  were  in  the  days  of  Trajan  to  suffer  such  troubles  as 
those  to  which  St.  Peter  alludes.^  It  ought  to  have  been 
regarded  as  decisive  against  the  later  date  thus  suggested 
for  the  Epistle,  that,  like  all  the  Epistles  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  is  anterior  to  that  rapid  development  of  the  power 
of  the  Episcopate  which  is  so  prominent  in  the  earliest  of 
the  extra-canonical  writings.  The  Churches  of  the  Spirit- 
ual Dispersion  are  still  under  the  government  of  Presbyters, 
and  St.  Peter  addresses  them  as  their  *' fellow-presbyter." 
The  word  '"'' episkopos''  occurs  but  once  in  his  letter,  and  that 
in  its  purely  general  and  untechnical  signification."  Hence 
the  letter  is  addressed  to  the  converts  in  general,  with  only 
a  special  message  to  Presbyters  at  the  end.  Hope  is  the 
keynote  of  this  Epistle.  Its  main  message  is.  Endure,  submit, 
foryoit  are  heirs  of  salvation.^ 

'  Plin.  Ep.  X.  97,  "flagitia  cohaerentia  nomiui ;  "'  Tac.  Ann.  xf.  44,  "quos,  per  Jlagitia 
invisos,  vulgus  Christianos  appellabat." 

2  A  celebrated  grafifito  of  the  Palatine,  representing  an  ass  on  a  cross,  has  been  supposed 
to  be  a  mockery  of  the  Crucifixion.  It  was  found  in  1856,  and  is  now  in  the  library  of  the 
Collegio  Romano.  P.  Garucci  supposes  that  it  was  drawn  towards  the  close  of  the  second 
century.  Similar  insults  to  Christians  have  been  found  on  various  gems  and  wall-inscriptions 
at  Pompeii,  etc.  See  Renan,  V Antechrist,  p.  40.  Merivale.  Hist.  vi.  442.  These  graffiti 
and  calumnies  are  alluded  to  by  Tertullian,  Apol.  16  ;  ad  Natt.  i.  11  ;  JNlinuc.  Felix,  Octav. 
ix.  28;   Celsus,  ap.  Grig.  c.  Cels.  vi.  31. 

3  Renan  rightly  says,  "  L'epitre  de  Pierre  repond  bien  a  ce  que  nous  savons,  surtout  par 
Tacite,  de  la  situation  des  Chretiens  a  Rome  vers  I'an  63  ou  64  "  [VAntechrist,  p.  xi.). 

*  I  Pet.  ii.  25,  to  the  Bishop  (or  Overseer)  of  j^our  souls. 

*•  The  letter  falls,  like  most  of  St.  Paul's  letters  (see  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  i.  605, 
606)  into  two  great  divisions — doctrinal  and  practical.  I.  i.  i — ii.  10,  the  blessings  of  Chris- 
tians, li.  ii.  Ti — V.  14,  the  the  duties  of  Christians.  More  in  detail  the  oudine  of  the  letter  is 
as  follows  : — (I.)  Greeting  (i.  1,  2)  ;  thanksgiving,  intended  to  console  the  readers  with  the 
living  Hope  of  that  future  inheritance  on  which,  through  God's  mercy  and  Christ's  resurrection, 
they  should  enter  after  their  brief  sorrows  on  earth — that  salvation,  to  which  all  prophecy 
pointed,  and  into  which  angels  desire  to  look  (i.  3-12)  ;  exhortation  (a)  to  holy  li7iing\\\  hope 
and  obedience  (i.  13-17),  founded  on  the  price  paid  for  their  redemption  (18-21)  ;  (/3)  to 
brotherly  lore,  founded  on  their  new  birth  by  the  eternal  word  of  God  (22-25)  ;  and  {y)  to 
Christiqi.n  innocence.,  as  babes  desiring  spiritual  milk,  and  as  living  stones  of  a  spiritual 
house  (ii.  i-io).  Then  (II.),  after  a  special  entreaty  to  them  to  abstain  from  fleshly  desires, 
so  as  to  win  their  heathen  neighbours  to  glorify  God  by  seeing  their  honourable  mode  of  life — 
an  entreaty  specially  applicable  to  a  period  when  "  Cliristian  "  was  regarded  as  a  synonym  of 
"malefactor"  (ii,  12),  he  passes  to  a  second  series  of  exhortations,  which  have  direct  refer- 
ence to  the  trials  by  which  they  are  surrounded  (ii.  13 — iii.  7)  :  namely,  to  the  spirit  of  sub- 
mission {(X)  generally  (ii.  13-17  ;  (/3)  in  the  position  o{  ser7Jnnts  (18-20)  bearing  in  mind  the 
meek  example  of  Christ  their  Redeemer  (21-25);  (7)  i>^  the  position  of  Christian  ivofnen,  who, 
in  meek  simplicity,  are  to  imitate  Sarah,  their  spiritual  ancestress  (lii.  1-6),  and  (6)  of  Christian 
husbands  (7).  Then  follows  a  third  series  of  exhortations  (iii.  8 — iv.  19),  (a)  to  forgiveness 
and  peaceful  self-control  as  in  God's  sight  (iii.  8-1?)  :  (/3)  to  calm  endurance  of  wrongful  suf- 
fering— again  with  reference  to  the  example  of  Christ  (13-18),  who  preached  even  in  Hades  to 
those  who  were  once  disobedient  (in  the  days  of  that  deluge  from  which  Noah  and  his  family 
were  saved  as  we  are  saved  by  baptism) — but  who  is  now  exalted  at  God's  right  hand  (19-22)  ; 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    TETEK.  99 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF    ST.    PETER. 

'ETTio-Tpei/zas  (mfiptaov  tovs  aSeA(^ovs. — LuKE  xxii.  32. 

"  Habet  ha.ec  epistola  to  a())oSpov  conveniens  ingenio  principis  apostolorum." — Grotius. 

"  Mirabilis  est  gravitas  etalacritas  Pctrini  sermonis,  lectorein  suavissime  retincns." — 

Bengkl. 

''Peter,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ" — such  is  the  simple 
and  authoritative  designation  which  he  adopts.  He  does 
not  need  to  add  any  of  the  amplifications  of  his  title,  or  as- 
sertions of  his  claim  to  it,  which  were  often  necessary  to  St. 
Paul,  whose  Apostolic  authority  had  been  so  fiercely  ques- 
tioned. Nor  does  he  need  to  adopt  St.  Paul's  practice  of 
associating  the  names  of  his  companions  with  his  own,  al- 
though both  Mark  and  Silvanus,  so  well  known  to  the 
Asian  Churches,  were  at  this  time  with  him  in  Rome.  His 
dignity  as  an  Apostle  was  unquestioned.  His  words  needed 
no  further  weight  than  they  derived  from  his  acknowledged 
position.  It  is  not  insignificant  that  he  uses  the  name 
which  Christ  had  given  him,  and  uses  it  in  its  Greek,  not  its 
Aramaic  form.  Had  he  been  writing  with  any  exclusive 
reference  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  it  is  more  probable  that 
he  would  have  used  his  own  name,  Symeon,  by  which  James 
speaks  of  him  to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  or  the  Aramaic 
''Kephas,"  by  which  St.  Paul  designates  him,  because  he 
was  so  called  by  the  Judaists  of  Galatia  and  Corinth.^ 

''  To  the  elect  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion  of  Pontus,- 
Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia."  The  Dispersion 
— in  Greek,  Diaspora  ;  in  Aramaic,  Galootha — was  no  doubt 
an  essentially  literal  and  geographical  expression  ;  but  as 
St.  Peter  uses  the  unusual  word  "  sojourners"  {parepidemoi) 
in  a  metaphorical  sense  for  ''  pilgrims"  in  ii.  ii,^  he  proba- 
bly uses  it  in  the  same  sense  here,  and  not  in  its  narrower 

(•y)  to  the  abandonment  of  the  old  heathen  Hfe,  which  would  bring  inevitable  judgment  (iv.  i- 
6)  ;  (6)  to  sobriety,  love,  hospitality,  aright  use  of  gifts,  that  God  may  be  glorified  (7-10)  ;  (e) 
to  the  cheerful,  innocent,  even  thankful  endurance  of  sorrow  as  a  normal  part  of  the  Christian 
life  (11-16),  and  one  in  which,  being  far  less  to  be  pitied  than  the  unfaithful,  they  might  safely 
entrust  their  souls  to  (>od  (17-19).  Then  follow  special  exhortations  (a)  to  Presbyters  (v. 
1-4)  ;  0)  to  younger  members  of  the  Church  (5-7)  ;  and  (7)  to  all  alike,  to  watch  and  strive 
(9,  10),  The  Epistle  ends  with  a  blessing  (10,  11)  and  a  few  parting  words  about  Silvanus 
and  the  letter  of  which  he  is  the  bearer  (12),  and  greetings  (13,  14). 

1  That  he  wrote  in  Greek  is  certain  from  the  style,  which  is  far  too  animated  to  be  a  trans- 
lation. It  is  a  most  narrow  view  which  assunies  that  St.  Peter  could  not  address  Gentiles 
without  violatmg  what  is  called  "  the  Apostolic  compact"  (Gal.  ii.  9). 

-  Hence  sometimes  known  as  the  Epistle  ad  Ponticos  (Tert.  ScorJ>.  12). 

3  Ps.  xxxix.  13,  cxx.  5.  Cf  Heb.  xi.  13  ;  Judith  v.  18  ;  2  Mace.  i.  27.  Comp.  John  xi. 
52,  and  napoiKOs  in  Acts  vii.  6,  29. 


I  GO  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

sense  of  scattered  Jews.  The  Churches  which  he  was  ad- 
dressing were  composed  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts. 
Many  of  the  latter  had  doubtless  been  proselytes.  Even 
those  who  had  been  converted  direct  from  heathenism 
would  have  been  made  familiar  from  the  first  with  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Old  Testament,  and  with  the  truth  which  St. 
Paul  had  so  powerfully  established  in  his  letter  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  that  the  converted  Gentiles  constituted  the  ideal 
Israel.  Nothing,  therefore,  is  more  natural  in  a  Jewish 
writer  than  the  half-literal,  half-metaphorical  expression, 
''the  expatriated  elect  of  the  Dispersion."  The  word 
"elect"  marks  them  out  as  Christians,  being  one  of  the 
terms  by  which  Christians  used  to  define  themselves.  ^  Many 
of  them,  being  Jews  by  birth,  were  literal  members  of  "  the 
Dispersion  ; "  all  of  them  were  strangers  upon  earth,  exiles 
from  heaven  their  home,  dwelling  in  Mesech  and  amid  the 
tents  of  Kedar.  It  is  natural  that  the  phrases  of  a  Jew^ish 
writer  should  be  predominantly  Jewish.  Even  the  language 
of  St.  Paul,  cosmopolitan  as  were  his  views,  is  largely  col- 
oured by  theocratic  images  and  metaphors  belonging  to  the 
older  dispensation.^ 

There  seems  to  be  no  traceable  significance  in  the  order 
in  which  the  provinces  of  Asia  Minor — to  use  a  convenient 
later  term — are  mentioned.  AVriting  from  Rome,  he  begins 
with  the  most  distant,  Pontus,  flinging  as  it  were  to  its 
farthest  cast  the  net  of  the  fisher  of  men.  The  order  of  the 
rest,  from  north-east  to  south  and  west,  must  be  due  to  some 
subjective  accident.  The  Churches  of  two  of  the  provinces, 
Galatia  and  Asia^ — including  some  so  important  as  Ancyra, 
Tavium,  Pessinus,  and  the  famous  Seven  Churches — had 
been  founded  by  St.  Paul  or  his  companions.  Jews  of  Pon- 
tus and  Cappadocia  had  been  present  at  the  great  discourse 
of  St.  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,*  and  these  districts  con- 
tained, among  others,  such  wealthy  towns  as  Tyana,  Nyssa, 
Csesarea,  and  Nazianzus.  The  Churches  of  Bithynia,  which 
St.  Paul  had  been  hindered  from  visiting  by  a  Divine  inti- 
mation, were  forerunners  of  the  communities  to  whose  sim- 
plicity and  faithfulness,  forty  years  later,  Pliny  bore  his 
impartial  and  memorable  testimony  in  his  letter  to  the  Em- 
peror-Trajan. 

1  I  Thess.  i.  4. 

2  The  Galatian  Churches,  for  instance,  were  largely  composed  of  Gentiles,  yet  St.  Paul's 
arguments  to  them  arc  of  a  Judaic  and  sometimes  even  of  a  Rabbinic  character. 

3  Proconsular  Asia,  which  included  Mysia,  Lydia,  Caria,  Phrygia,  Pisidia,  and  Lycaonia. 
*  Acts  ii.  9.     Cf.  Jos.  Atiti.  xvi.  6. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER.  10 1 

Having  thus  named  the  converts  whom  he  meant  spe- 
cially to  address,  he  describes  their  election  as  due  in  its 
origin  ^'io  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,"  in  its 
progress  "to  the  sanctifying  work  of  the  Spirit,"  and  as  hav- 
ing for  its  end  "obedience,  and  sprinkling  by  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ."'  Thus,  no  less  than  St.  Paul,  he  describes 
each  of  the  Three  Persons  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  as  co- 
operant  in  the  work  of  man's  salvation.  In  his  salutation, 
"Grace  unto  you  and  peace,"  he  follows  St.  Paul  in  the 
comprehensive  formula  by  which  he  unites  the  Hellenic 
greeting  of  'V^j',"  with  the  Hebrew  greeting  of  ^^ peace" — 
both  of  them  used  in  their  deeper  Christian  sense,^  of  a 
"peace"  which  passeth  understanding,  and  a  ''joy"  which 
the  Avorld  could  neither  give  nor  take  away.  From  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  with  w^iich  he  was  evidently  familiar,  he 
adopts  the  expression  ^^ be  midtiplied"  which  is  feund  in  the 
letters  of  Darius  and   Nebuchadnezzar  there   recorded  '  (i. 

Then  follows  the  rich  and  full  thanksgivmg,  with  its 
comprehensive  glance  at  the  future  (3 — 5),  the  present  (6 — 9), 
and  the  past  (10—12)  : — "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,*  Who,  according  to  His  great  mercy, 
begat  us  again  ^  to  a  living  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  dead,^  to  an  inheritance  incorruptible  and 
stainless  and  un withering,'  Avhich  has  been  reserved  in  hea- 
ven for  you,^ — who  by  the  power  of  God  are  being  guarded ' 
by  faith' unto  a  salvation  ready  to  be  revealed '"  at  the  last 

1  pavno-ju.oi'.  Heb.  xii.  24,  "Sprinkling,"  i.e.,  "Your  being  sprinkled."  The  allusion  is 
to  the  sprinkling  of  t\\&j>eo^le  at  the  inauguration  of  the  Mosaic  Covenant  (Ex.  xxiv.  8)  ;  but 
there  may  be  also  the  conception  of  purifying,  as  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary  were  purified  by 
sprinkled  blood.  Cf.  Heb.  ix.  13,  18-28;  Ex.  xxiv.  6-8  ;  Lev.  xvi.  14  and  19,  etc.  _  Any  allu- 
sion to  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  Weiss  {Petr.  Lehrbegr.  273)  assumes  as  certain,  is  more 
than  doubtful. 

2  See  my  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  i.  580.  \      r^c 

3  Dan.  iii.  31,  iv.  i,  vi.  25,  whence  the  Rabbis  probably  derived  it  (Wetst.  ad  Cor.).  Cf. 
Jude  2  ;  2  Pet.  i.  2. 

4  Cf.  Eph.  i.   3.  •  .  .  T  •       o 

5  'Avayei/v^o-a?,  a  word  peculiar  to  St  Peter.  But  compare  d7reKvi7(rev,  James  1.  18  :  7^"" 
vo-aQai  avbiOev,  James  iii.  3 :  nakLyyevea-ia.  Tit.   iii.  5  ;  KTiaBevre?  iv  Xp.   Irjaov,  Eph.  11.  10. 

6  Here  he  strikes  the  key-note  of  the  Epistle,  Ho/e  founded  on  the  Resurrection  ;  not  a 
dead,  but  an  energising  Hope,  such  as  the  Resurrection  had  wrought  in  the  Apostles  by  dis- 
pelling their  despair  ;  a  Hope  living,  life-giving,  and  looking  to  life  (De  Wette)  of  which  the 
Resurrection  was  "not  only  the  exemplar,  but  the  efficient  cause"  (Leighton). 

7  Ets.  The  Hope  will  end  in  the  fruition  of  heritage,  which  is  salvation  and  glory  (i  Pel. 
i.  5,  V.  i) :  dju,apai'TOS  (Wisd.  vi.  12)  not  the  same  as  d/xapdi'Tivos  in  v.  4. 

s  And  therefore  beyond  the  reach  of  danger.  .     . 

»  "  Haereditas  scrvata  est,  haeredes  custodiuntur"  (Bengel).  Cf.  Phil.  iv.  7.  The 
MSS.  throughout  the  Epistle  vary  between  "  us  "  and  "  you,"  as  is  so  often  the  case.  Here, 
as  in  almost  every  instance,  v/u.ds  is  the  right  reading  (X,  A,  B,  C,  K,  L,  etc.),  though  tne  E. 
V.  usually  adopts  "  us  "  and  "  we."  The  "  you  "  is  characteristic  of  the  Apostolic  authority 
of  the  teacher.  .       .  ,    ,  •    . 

10  Draw  the  curtain  at  the  last  time  (Jud.  18),  and  the  salvation  is  already  there,  betund 
the  veil.     See  i  Pet.  iv.  5,  7. 


I02  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

season.  In  which  thought  ye  exult/  though  for  a  little 
while  at  present,  if  need  be,  ye  have  been  grieved  in  various 
trials,  that  the  tested  genuineness  of  your  faith — a  far  cost- 
lier thing  than  gold  which  perisheth,  and  yet  is  tested  by 
means  of  fire  '^ — might  prove  to  be  for  (your)  praise  and 
lionourand  glory  ^  at  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  Whom 
though  ye  never  saw  ye  love  ;*  on  Whom — though  ye  still 
see  Him  not — yet  believing,  ye  exult  with  joy  inexpressible 
and  glorified  ;  carrying  off  as  a  prize  ^  the  end  of  your  faith 
— the  salvation  of  souls.®  Respecting  which  salvation  the 
prophets  diligently  sought  and  searched,  who  prophesied 
concerning  the  grace  which  was  coming  to  you  ; — searching 
as  to  what  or  what  kind  of  season  the  spirit  of  Christ  in 
them  ^  was  indicating,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  suf- 
ferings which  were  to  fall  upon  Christ,®  and  the  glories  that 
should  follow  them  ;  to  w^iom  it  was  revealed  that  not 
[mainly]  for  themselves,^  but  for  you  they  were  ministering 
these  things,^"  which  have  now  been  proclaimed  to  you  ''  by 
means  of  those  who  preached  to  you  the  Gospel  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  sent  from  heaven  ; '"  into  which  things  angels  desire 
to  stoop  and  look."  ^^ 

"Therefore,  girding  up  at  once  the  loins  of  your  under- 
standing,'* being  sober,  lean  with  perfect  hope  upon  the  grace 
that  is  being  borne  to  you  in  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
as  children  of  obedience,^^  not  fashioning  yourselves  in  con- 
formity'® with  the  former  desires  in  your  day  of  ignorance."  " 

^  Here  he  passes  from  the  future  to  ihe /resejit.  Tr.e  "salvation"  in  its  completeness  is 
future,  the  "exultation"  (a  word  characteristically  Petrine ;  cf.  i  Pet.  i.  8,  iv.  13;  Matt.  v. 
12)  is  present,  and  the  epithets  applied  to  it  are  anticipatory  only  in  ih^ir  Julness. 

-  Hermas,  Pastor,  i.  4,  p.  440;  ed.  Dressel. 

3  "  Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant  !  "  (Matt.  xxv.  21).  4  John  xx.  29. 

^  The  prize  is  carried  off  by  anticipation  now;  in  reality  hereafter.  It  is  "glory  begtin 
below."     "  The  moods  of  the  New  Testament  converge  towards  the  present." 

^  I  Pet.  i.  6-9.     The  "  salvation  "  is  not  from  the  sorrows  and  trials  of  life,  but  from  all  sin. 

"  'Ihe  remark  in  the  Ep.  of  IJarnabas  {ca/>.  v.)  still  remains  the  best  comment  on  this  ex- 
pression, "The  prophets,  having  their  gift  from  Him,  prophesied  about  Him."  St.  Peter  was 
not  likely  to  enter  into  such  scholastic  refinements  as  those  which  separate  the  idea  of  "  Christ" 
from  that  of  "  the  Ktenial  .Son." 

**  I  Pet.  i.  II,  Ta  ei?  Xpiarbv  iraO-^fxaTa. 

*  "  As  little  children  lisp  and  talk  of  Heaven, 

So  thoughts  beyond  their  thoughts  to  those  high  bards  were  given." — Kfble. 
I  insert  the  word  "  mainlj^ "  after  "  not "  in  accordance  with  a  well-known  idiom. 

'"  See  Acts  ii.  17,  31,  lii.  24. 

"  "You"  and  "  ye"  (not  "us"  and  "we,"  as  in  the  E.  V.)  are  the  best  authorised  read- 
ings throughout  the  Epistle,  except  in  i.  3,  iv.  17,  and  ii.  24  (from  Isaiah).  This  seems  to 
have  been  St.  Peter's  method  (Acts  xv.  7). 

'2  Mark  the  emphatic  testimony  to  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul,  by | whom,  directly  or  indirectly, 
mo.st  of  these  Churches  had  been  founded. 

'3  I  Pet.  i.  10-12.  For  the  word  irapaKvipac  see  James  i.  25  :  I.uke  xxiv.  12  :  John  xx.  5, 
II.     Cf.  Heb.  ii.  16.  ^"^  Luke  xii.  25;  Eph.  vi.  14. 

'•^  Cf.  rsKva  op-yjj?,  Eph.  ii.  3:  <f>uiT6<;,  v.  8  ;  Kardpa^,  2  Pet.  ii.  14. 

'"  o-vffXTj/xaTt^oM-ei'oi,  Kom.  xii.  2, 

*"  "Ignorance;"  cf.  Rom.  i.  18;  Acts  iii.  17,  xvii.  30. 


THE    FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER.  IO3 

This  pregnant  exhortation  is  supported  by  the  motives, 
(i.)  of  God's  lioliness  (15,  16)  ;  (ii. )  of  the  fear  due  to  Tlim 
as  a  Father  and  impartial  Judge  (17)  ;'  and  (iii.)  of  the  fact 
that  they  were  ransomed  from  their  empty  traditional  mode 
of  life,  not  by  mere  corruptible  silver  and  gold,"  but  by  cost- 
ly blood,  as  of  a  lamb  blameless  and  spotless,  even  of  ChTist  f 
Who  was  pre-ordained  before  the  world  was,  but  has  been 
manifested  at  the  end  of  the  time''  for  the  sake  of  them  who 
through  Him  believe  on  God,  wdio  raised  Him  from  the 
dead,  and  gave  Him  glory,  so  that  our  faith  is  also  hope 
towards  God. " 

The  exhortation  to  Hope  founded  on  these  motives  is 
followed  by  an  exhortation  to  sincere  and  intense  Love,  as 
the  natural  result  of  the  purification  of  the  soid  by  the  Holy 
Spirit^  in  the  path  of  obedience  ;  and  of  that  new  birth — not 
by  human  engendering,  but  by  means  of  the  living  w^ord 
{Xoyo'?)  of  God,  which  is  not  transient,  as  is  the  flower  of  hu- 
man life,^  but  is  an  utterance  (pvj/xa)  which  abideth  for  ever 
— ''  And  this  is  the  utterance  preached  to  you  as  the  Gospel."  ® 

This  is  the  starting-point  to  fresh  exhortations.  There 
were  evidently  divisions  between  the  members  of  the 
Churches,  which  led  St.  Peter  to  impress  on  them  the  duty 
of  fervent  love.  He  proceeds  to  urge  them  to  lay  aside,' 
like  some  stained  robe,  all  that  is  ruinous  to  brotherly  union 
— malice,  guile,  insincerities,  envies,  backbitings,  wdiich  may 
easily  have  arisen  from  such  conditions  as  we  have  seen  ex- 
isting in  the  Churches  of  Galatia.*"  Born  again,  let  them, 
as  new-born  babes,  desire  to  be  nurtured  into  perfect  growth 
by  the  unadulterated  spiritual  milk,'^  since  they   knew  by 

I  el  ndrepa  eniKaXela-Oe — "  If  ye  call  on  him  as  '  Father,"'  Who,"  etc.  Perhaps  with  refer- 
ence to  the  Lord's  Prayer.  In  these  verses  notice  avao-Tpo^Tj  "mode  of  life,"  "  con»ersatiori " 
in  its  old  sense,  used  also  to  render  noKiTevna,  "citizenship,"  in  Phil.  i.  27.  The  adv.  in-po- 
aoiTToKiJTTToi^  occurs  here  only,  but  the  conception  is  thoroughly  Petrinc  (Acts  x.  34).  The 
"fear"  here  recommended  is  not  tlie  fear  reprobated  in  i  John  iv.  18  ;  Rom.  viii  15  ;  2  Tim. 
i.  7,  but  "godly  fear,"  (^d.3os  reAenoTtKo?,  awfu!  reverence  mixed  with  love,  which  "drowns 
all  lower  fears,  and  begets  true  fortitude"  (Leighton). 

'^  Notice  the  Petrine  contempt  for  dross  (Acts  iii.  6,  viii.  20). 

3  With  special  ailnsioii  to  the  deliverance  secured  by  the  Paschal  Lamb  (Ex.  xii.  36) ;  gen- 
eral reference  to  the  .wiiiteness  and  harmlessness  of  the  T>amb.     See  /,//<"  0/  Christ,  i.  143. 

*  I  Pet.  i.  20,  €7r'  €<r\aTuiv  twi/  xpovmv,  D"*X;Tl  tT'lhN  (Gen.  xlix.  i)- 

*  Or,  "so  that  your  faith  and  hope  are  in  God,"  who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead.  etc. 
Acts  ii.  22  (i.  13-21). 

^'  Cf.  Acts  XV.  9,  where,  however,  the  verb  is  Ka9a.pi^o>,  not  ayvi^ia,  as  here  and  in  James 
iv.  8  ;^  I  John  iii.  3.     (.See  John  xi.  55  ;  Acts  xxi.  24.) 

'  e^f)oa.v9r]  .  .  .  e^ijieaev,  gnomic  aorists — i.e.,  aorists  expressive  ot  a  general  fact.  See 
my  Brief  Greek  Syntax,  §  154.  ' 

®  I  Pet.  i.  22-25.  The  "  Ix)gos"  of  this  passage,  if  it  has  not  yet  risen  lo  its  Johannine 
sense,  hovers  on  the  verge  of  it,  as  in  Heb.  iv.  12. 

^  'Ano9eu.evoi,  i  Pet.  ii.  i.  '°  See  Life  n7id  Work  of  St.  l^iul,  ii.  129,  seq. 

''  TO  KoyiKov  (Rim.  xii.  i),  dSoAoi'  (i  Pet.  ii.  2),  yaka  (2  Cur.  iv.  2), 


I04  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

tasting  that  the  Lord  is  sweet/  And  then,  changing  the 
metaphor,'  lie  bids  them  "come  to  Christ,"  a  living  stone, 
and  be  built  upon  Him — as  living  stones  upon  a  corner- 
stone— into  a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up' 
spiritual  sacrifices  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ."  ^ 
The  rejection  of  that  precious  stone  by  men,  and  its  choice 
by  God  had  long  been  prophesied/  The  preciousness  of  it 
should  belong  to  those  who  believed  on  Him  •/  to  the  others 
— "for  which  they  were  also  appointed" — He  should  be  a 
stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence/  "  But  ye  are  an 
elect  race,  a  royal  priesthood,®  a  holy  nation,  a  people  for 
special  possession,^"  in  order  that  ye  may  proclaim  the  excel- 
lence'^ of  Him  Who  called  you  from  darkness  into  His  mar- 
vellous light :  once  not  a  people,  but  now  a  people  of  God  ; 
once  uncompassionated,  but  compassionated  now^"  ^' 

Having  thus  laid  the  sure  foundations  of  Hope  and 
Comfort  in  the  great  doctrinal  truths  of  Christianity,  he  de- 
votes the  rest  of  the  Epistle  to  the  enforcement  of  the  moral 
duties  which  result  from  our  Christian  profession. 

(i)   First  comes  the  appeal  to  live  purely  and  blamelessly. 

"  Beloved  !  I  beseech  you  as  sojourners  and  pilgrims 
to  abstain  from  the  carnal  desires  which  make  war  against 
the  soul,'^  keeping  fair  your  mode  of  life  "  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, that,  in  the  matter  in  which  they  speak  against  you  as 


1  Ps.  xxxiv.  8,  Xprjo-Tos,  "sweet"  (Aug.  dulcis,  Vulg.  suavis).  Cf.  Luke  v.  39,  vi.  35. 
Some  have  supposed  a  pleasant  play  of  words,  founded  on  itacism,  between  c/irestos  (sweet) 
and  Christos  (Christ).     See  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  i.  301. 

2  There  is  the  same  sequence  of  the  same  metaphors  in  i  Cor.  iii.  i,  10. 

3  "Come  (Trpocre'pxecrflai)  as  true  proselytes  (TrpoorjAvTot)."  Though  St.  Peter  here  uses 
liihos,  "  stone,"  not  J>e'itra,  he  is  perhaps  thinking  of  the  great  promise  to  himself  (Matt.  xvi. 

*  aveveyKat,  "  to  oflfer  once  for  all"  (aor.),  Rom.  xii.  i. 

6  H^.  xiii.  15. 

"  Is.  xxviii.  16.  This  citation,  divergent  from  the  LXX.  in  the  two  same  particulars  ("I 
lay  in  Sion"  and  "on  Him")  as  in  Rom.  ix.  33,  is  a  striking  instance  of  the  use  of  that 
Epistle  by  St.  Peter;  aKpoytavioiop  (Eph.  ii.  20).  "~ 

■^  17  Ti/otrj,  I  Pet.  ii.  7,  rendered  in  E.  V.  "he  is  precious."  "The  honour"  is  that  involved 
in  the  evTiiJLov,  "honourable"  (E.  V.,  "  precious"),  of  the  previous  verse.  For  the  O.  T. 
reference  see  Ps.  cxviii.  22  ;  Is.  viii.  14.     (Heb.  and  Rom.  ix.  33.) 

"  See  Ps.  cxviii.  22  ;  Is.  viii.  14;  Luke  xx.  17,  18  ;  Rom.  ix.  32,  33  ;  Matt.  xvi.  23.  The 
allusion  is  to  the  course  of  God's  earthly  dealings,  e.£^.,  as  Roos  say.s,  "If  Caiaphas,  Judas, 
etc.,  had  been  born  in  a  different  century,  they  could  not  have  acted  as*  they  did."  There  is 
no  decree  of  reprobation,  nor  is  the  future  world  even  alluded  to,  in  ecs  o  koL  eTeOrjaav.  .See 
Acts  i.  16.     On  the  whole  subject  see  Lt/e  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  242-244,  t;qo. 

«  Ex.  xix.  6,  LXX. 

'"  ei?  jrepiTTOiTjo-t*' (F-ph.  i.  14  ;  1  Thess.  v.  g;  Rev.  i.  6;  Acts  xx.  28):  T'Si^'O  "CV  (I-s. 
xliii.  21 :  Kx.  XX.  5). 

11  a.fitTa.%  (a  rare  word,  2  Pet.  i.  3),  Is.  xliii.  20,  LXX.  ;  in  Hebr.,  "^ntrt;*,  "  my  praise  " 
(Is.  xlviii.  9). 

'2  I  Pet.  ii.  i-io.     Lo  Ammi  and  Lo  Ruhamah  (Hos.  ii.  23  ;  Rom.  ix.  25). 

"  Jas.  iv.  I  ;   Rom.  vii.  23. 

»*  o.va.a-po^'i]  and  avaarpeijua-Oai.  occur  ten  times  in  1  and  2  Pet. 


THE    FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER.  105 

malefactors,'  they  may,  in  consequence  of  your  fair  deeds,  as 
they  witness  them,  glorify  God  iu  the  day  of  visitation."  ^ 

(2)  A  second  special  duty  of  Christians  in  those  days  was 
due  respect^  in  all  things  lawful^  to  the  civil  government.  By 
Messianic  exultation,  by  eschatological  enthusiasms,  by  the 
sense  of  the  glory  and  the  dignity  of  redeemed  manhood, 
by  the  revealed  equality  of  all  men  in  the  sight  of  Him  Who 
is  no  respecter  of  persons,  by  the  conviction  of  the  dwin- 
dling littleness  of  human  distinctions  in  the  light  of  eternal 
life,  they  might,  if  they  were  not  warned,  be  naturally 
tempted  to  a  demeanour  which  would  seem  contemptuous 
towards  earthly  authority.  Nay,  more  ;  the  fearful  spec- 
tacle of  the  power  of  the  world  wielded  by  those  who  were 
but  too  manifest  servants  of  the  power  of  darkness— the 
sight  of  Antichrist  seated  in  his  infamy  upon  the  world's 
throne — the  daily  proof  of  odious  wickedness  in  high  places 
— the  constant  expectation  of  that  Archangelic  trumpet 
which  would  shatter  the  solid  globe,  and  of  that  flaming 
epiphany  which  should  destroy  the  enemies  of  Christ — 
might  lead  them  into  defiant  words  and  contumacious 
actions.  Occasions  there  are — and  none  knew  this  better 
than  an  Apostle  who  had  himself  set  an  example  of  splen- 
did disobedience  to  unwarranted  commands^ — when  ''we 
must  obey  God  rather  than  men."  But  those  occasions 
are  exceptional  to  the  common  rule  of  life.  Normally, 
and  as  a  whole,  human  law  is  on  the  side  of  divine  order, 
and,  by  whomsoever  administered,  has  a  just  claim  to  obedi- 
ence and  respect.  It  was  a  lesson  so  deeply  needed  by  the 
Christians  of  the  day  that  it  is  taught  as  emphatically  by  St. 
John*  and  by  St.  Peter  as  by  St.  Paul  himself.^  It  was  more 
than  ever  needed  at  a  time  when  dangerous  revolts  were 
gathering  to  a  head  in  Judaea  ;  when  the  hearts  of  Jews 
throughout  the  world  were  burning  with  a  fierce  flame  of 
hatred  against  the  abominations  of  a  tyrannous  idolatry  ; 

1  At  first  the  Christians  were  mainly  charged  with  turbulence,  moroseness,  "  incivisttte," 
detestable  superstition  (Tacitus  and  Suetonius),  and  hard  obstinacy  (Pliny  and  Marcus  Au- 
relius).  The  charges  of  infant  murder,  cannibalism,  and  gross  immorality  (Tert.  Apol.  i6,  etc.) 
belong  to  a  later  age,  when  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Agapae  were  misunderstood,  and,  per- 
haps, wiien  Gnostic  sects  had  really  fallen  into  vile  Antinomianism. 

2  I  Pet.  ii.  J.I.  12.  "Day  of  visitation,"  when  God  comes  to  offer  mercy  (Gen.  1,  24 ; 
Wisd.  iii.  7 ;  Luke  i.  68,  xix.  44),  or  to  judge  (Is.  x.  3)  ;  not  "  when  the  heathen  make  judicial 
inquiry  into  your  conduct"  ((T.cumen.,  Kengel,  etc.),  nor  "on  the  Judgment  Day"  (Bede). 
Notice  the  large-hearted  absence  of  any  spirit  of  revenge.  He  only  desires  that  the  heathen, 
when  they  find  how  base  were  their  calumnies,  how  cruel  their  conduct,  may  be  led  to  glorify 
God  !  No  anathemas  here.  Pliny's  celebrated  letter  to  Trajan  [Ep.  x.  93)  is  the  best  com- 
ment on  this  passage. 

3  Acts  iii.  ig,  31,  v.  28-32,  40-42.  ■*  John  xix.  11. 

6  And  yet  Volkmar  sees  in  St.  Paul  the  False  Prophet  of  the  Apocalyp.se,  mainly  because 
he  taught  that  "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God  !  " 


I06  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

when  Christians  were  being  charged  with  **  turning  the 
world  upside-down  ;"  '  whpn  some  poor  Christian  slave  led 
to  martyrdom  or  put  to  the  torture  might  easily  relieve  the 
tension  of  his  soul  by  bursting  into  Apocalyptic  denuncia- 
tions of  sudden  doom  against  the  crimes  of  the  mystic 
Babylon  ;  when  the  heathen,  in  their  impatient  contempt, 
might  wilfully  interpret  a  prophecy  of  the  Final  Conflagra- 
tion 9.8  though  it  were  a  revolutionary  and  incendiary 
threat ;  and  when  Christians  at  Rome  were,  on  this  very 
account,  already  suffering  the  agonies  of  the  Neronian  per- 
secution.^ 

Submission,  therefore,  was  at  this  time  a  primary  duty 
of  all  who  wished  to  win  over  the  Heathen,  and  to  save 
the  Church  from  being  overwhelmed  in  some  outburst  of 
indignation  which  would  be  justified  even  to  reasonable 
and  tolerant  Pagans  as  a  political  necessity.  Nor  does 
St.  Peter  think  it  needful  to  lay  down  exceptions  to  his 
general  rule.  In  his  days  the  letter  of  Scripture  had 
not  yet  been  turned  into  a  weapon  wherewith  on  ever}*" 
possible  occasion  to  murder  its  spirit.  He  could  not  have 
anticipated  in  even  the  humblest  Christian  convert  that 
dull  literalism  which  in  later  ages  was  to  derive  from 
such  passages  the  slavish  doctrine  of  "passive  obedience." 
He  felt  no  apprehension  that  an  unreasoning  fetish-worship 
would  fail  to  see  that  "  texts  "  of  Scripture  are  to  be  inter- 
preted, not  as  rigid  and  exclusive  legal  documents,  but  in 
accordance  with  the  general  tenor  of  revelation.  He  was 
writing  to  Christians  who  had  not  yet  invented  a  dogma 
about  "verbal  dictation,"  which  necessitated  ingenious 
casuistry  on  the  one  hand,  or  unreasonable  folly  on  the 
other,  and  which  turned  both  into  a  deadly  engine  of  irre- 
sponsible tyranny. 

"Submit,  therefore,"  the  Apostle  says,  "to  every  human 
ordinance,^  for  the  Lord's  sake,  whether  to  the  Emperor  as 
supreme,*  or  to  governors,^  as  missioned  by  him  for  punish- 
ment of  malefactors  and  praise  to  well-doers ;  for  this  is  the 
will  of  God,  that  by  your  well-doing  ye  shovdd  gag**  the 
stolid  ignorance  of  foolish  persons  ;  as  free,  yet  not  using 

^  Acts  xvii.  6. 

*  Tertullian  and  other  apologists  were  greatly  aided  in  their  appeals  to  heathen  clemency 
by  referring  to  such  passages  as  this.     See  Pert.  Af>ol.  29-34. 

3  KTtViv,   lit.    "creature."     ra?  apxo.i  Aeyet  rd?  ;^eip0T0»O7Tas    vtto  rSiv  Ba(Ti,\eiai>,   k,t.\. 
(CEcumen.). 

*  The  name  ' '  king  "  was  freely  used  of  the  Emi:)eror  in  the  Provinces. 
'  Proconsuls,  Procurators,  Legates.  Propraetors,  etc. 

*•  ft>ilxQuv,  Dent.  xxv.  4,  and  in  tlic  Oospels. 


THE   FIRST   EPISl'LE    UV   ST.   rEFER.  10/ 

your  freedom  for  a  cloak  of  baseness,'  but  as  slaves  of  God. 
Honour  all  men,"  as  a  principle  ;  and  as  your  habitual 
practice,^  'Move  the  brotherhood.  Fear  God.  Honour  the 
king.  "^ 

{3)  These  being  the  general  rules,  he  applies  them  first 
/.';  domestics^'^  whether  slaves  or  freemen,  bidding  them  with 
all  fear  to  be  submissive,  not  only  to  kindly  but  even  to 
perverse  masters,  and  that  as  a  matter  of  conscience^  even 
in  cases  of  unjust  suffering.  ''  For  what  kind  of  glory  is  it 
if  doing  wrong  and  being  buffeted  ye  shall  bear  it  ?  but  if 
doing  well  and  suffering  ye  shall  bear  it,  this  is  thankworthy 
with  God.^  For  to  this  ye  were  called,  because  Christ  too" 
— Who  was  also  *'a  servant"' — "suffered  on  your  behalf, 
leaving  you  a  copy,®  that  ye  may  follow  in  His  track  :  Who 
did  no  sin,  nor  was  guile  found  in  His  mouth  ;  Who  being 
reviled  reviled  not  again,  suffering  threatened  not,  but  gave 
up^  to  Him  Who  judgeth  righteously  ;^°  Who  Himself  car- 
ried up  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  to  the  tree,^'  that  be- 
coming separated  from  our  sins'"  we  should  live  to  righteous- 
ness ;  by  Whose  bruise  we  were  healed.'^  For  ye  were  as 
wandering  sheep,  but  ye  are  now  returned  to  the  shepherd 
and  guardian  of  your  souls."  '* 

(4)   But  a  word  was  also  necessary  on  the  subject  of   so- 

1  "License  they  mean  when  they  cry  Liberty"  (Milton).  Calvin  speaks  of  some  who 
"  reckoned  it  a  great  part  of  Christian  liberty  that  they  might  eat  flesh  on  Fridays "  ! 

2  The  first  verb  is  an  aor.,  Tifx-rjaaTe.  The  others  are  presents,  to  imply  continuance. 
"All  men,"  see  Acts  x.  28.  3  j  Pf.^   jj    13-17. 

■*  o'lKeTai.  The  prominence  given  to  this  class  shows  how  numerous  they  were  in  the  early 
Church,  and  is  an  additional  proof  that  St.  Peter  must  be  addressing  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews. 
The  Jews  were  rarely  slaves,  because  their  religion  rendered  them  almost  useless  to  heathen 
masters. 

^  Some  would  here  render  ovvetS ijaew?,  consciousness,  or  cognisance  of  God  [ntitwisscn, 
not  erivissen).     Cf.  Col.  iii.  23. 

"  X'^P'??  ^s  in  Luke  vi.  32.     Cf.   ^h  NStt,  Gen.  vi.  8.  "<  Is.  liii.  9;  Acts  iii.  13. 

^  iiTToypajix/ibs — the  letters  over  which  children  write.     (Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  8-50.) 

"  7rape5t'6ou  he.  1"he  subject  is  not  expressed,  but  probably  the  verb  has  a  quasi-middle 
sense — "entrcisted  Himself  and  His  cause." 

^'^  Luke  xxiii.  46.  The  Vulg.  reads  "  injuste,"  so  that  there  seems  to  have  been  a  readiii.? 
aSiKw? — referring  to  Christ's  submission  to  Pilate. 

^1  I  do  not  think  that  "  He  bore"  {avrjveyKfv,  tidit  et  obtulit)  can  here  have  its  sacrificial 
sense  (which  it  has  in  James  ii.  21,  Heb.  ix.  28,  and  in  the  LXX.).  Christ  is,  indeed,  the 
High  Priest,  and  the  Cross  may  be  metaphorically  described  as  the  Altar  (Hcb.  xiii.  10).  P<ut 
in  what  possible  sense  can  "  sins"  he  called  a  sacrifice?  The  only  way  to  save  this  sense  of 
av^vey/cei'  is  to  connect  a^-.apTia?  very  closely  with  ei/  tu>  trio/tiaTi  auToi),  making  the  sacrifice 
His  own  body,  in  which  He  bare  our  sins  (Is.  liii.  12)  :  "  Ita  tulissepeccata  nostra  ut  ea  secum 
obtulerlt  in  aitari"  (Vitringa).  Put  ava</)e'pa>  often  has  its  ordinary  sense  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (Mark  ix.  2:  Luke  xxiv.  51,  etc.),  and  there  is  no  sacrificial  sense  in  the  verbs  sabnt 
and  nasa  of  Is.  liii.  11,  12.  The  use  of  the  word  "tree"  (^liAov)  for  "cross"  is  Hebraic 
(Deut._  xxi.  23  ;   Gal.  iii.  13). 

12  ctTToyefo/i.ci'oi,  This  is,  however,  sometimes  an  euphemism  for  '•  being  dead,"  Hdt.  il.  Ts 
(cf  Rom.  VI.  2).     "  Righteousness  is  one  ;  sin  is  manifold." 

1^  Is.  Iii.  5,  ixu>\(x)iTi,  "  weal." 

i*  I  Pet.  ii.  18-25,  eTTicTKOTTO?.  Cf  Ez.  xxxiv.  11.  Hitherto  they  had  been  the  other  shetp, 
not  of  this  fold  (.John  x.  16;. 


lOS  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

cial  as  well  as  political  submission.  Christian  wives  married 
to  heathen  husbands  might  be  led  to  treat  them  as  inferior 
to  themselves.  The  elevation  of  their  whole  sex  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  new  revelation  might  tempt  them  to  extrava- 
gances of  ornament  or  demeanour.  To  them  therefore  St. 
Peter  extends  his  exhortations,  that,  even  if  (to  suppose  the 
worst)  any  of  them  be  married  to  heathens  who  obey  not  the 
Word  (/.6'.,  the  Gospel),  they  may  without  word  '  {i.e.,  by  the 
eloquent  silence  of  deeds)  be  won  by  the  chaste  humility, 
the  ''delicate,  timorous  grace,"  of  wives  whose  adornment 
should  not  consist  in  elaborately  braided  hair,^  golden  jewels, 
or  splendid  robes,  but  in  the  inner  soul,^  in  ''  the  incorrup- 
tibleness  of  the  meek  and  quiet  spirit,  w^iich  is  in  God's  sight 
very  precious."  It  was  thus  that  the  holy  women  of  old, 
hoping  Godwards,  adorned  themselves,  submissive  to  their 
husbands  as  Sarah  w^as,"  w^iose  spiritual  children  they  would 
prove  themselves  to  be  by  calm  and  equable  w^ell-doing,  and 
by  not  living  in  a  state  of  nervous  scare. ^  Christian  husbands 
too  are  to  be  gentle  and  considerate  to  their  fellow-heirs  of 
salvation,  that  no  jarring  discords  might  cut  short  their 
prayers."  What  we  have  said  in  the  first  chapter  will  throw 
into  relief  the  beauty  and  Avisdom  of  these  exhortations.  By 
the  flagrancy  of  immorality,  the  frequency  of  divorce,  and 
the  disgust  for  marriage  w^iich  prevailed  in  Rome,  we  may 
measure  the  blessedness  of  Christian  matrimony.  The 
meanest  Christian  slave  who  was  imprisoned  in  an  ergastu- 
lunty  and  would  be  buried  in  a  catacomb,  had  no  need  to 
envy  the  splendid  misery  of  a  Nero  or  the  pathetic  tragedy 
of  an  Octavia's  life.  The  life  of  many  a  Christian  couple  in 
the  squalor  of  a  humble  slave-cell  was  unspeakably  more 
desirable  than  that  of  the  Roman  profligates  in  their  terror- 
hauntod  palaces. 

"  O  if  they  knew  how  pressed  those  splendid  chains 
How  little  would  they  mourn  their  humbler  pains  !  " 


•  An  interesting  rt«^rt«rtf/a.9/j  or  intentional  variation  of  meaning,  in  the  use  of  Aoyos  which 
the  v..  v.  has  missed.     The  Christian  woman  was  not  to  be  a  preacher  in  her  own  house. 

'  1  Tim.  ii.  9.  Coins  and  allusions  show  how  elaborate  in  this  period  was  the  adornment 
of  the  hair  among  women  of  the  world  ;  how  many  were  their  jewels,  and  how  extravagant 
their  robes.     See  supra,  p.  5. 

3  "The  hidden  man  of  the  heart" — a  sti-iking  expression  independently  borrowed  in  a 
different  sense  (for  St.  Peter  never  alludes  to  "  the  Christ  within  us,"  Gal.  iv.  19)  from  Rom. 
ii.  29,  vii.  22  ;  2  Cor.  iv.  16 ;  Eph.  iii.  16.  For  classical  analogies  see  Plut.  Conjtig;.  PraeccJ>t. 
26  ;  and  see  Clem.  Alex.  Paedag.  iii.  4. 

■t  Gen.  xviii.  12. 

5  On  Sarah's  spiritual  race  .see  Rom.  iv.  n  :  Gal.  iii.  7.  The  word  ittotjo-is,  "  scare."  is 
probably  borrowed  from  Prov.  iii.  25  (LXX.).     St.  Peter  was  evidently  familiar  with  the  Pro- 

*  1  Pet.  iii.  1-7,  For  iKKonTLO'Oai  (Rom.  xi.  22,  etc.),  A,  B,  read  eyKonreaOai,  "be  hin 
dered."     Cf.  1  Cor.  \-\'i.  5. 


tiil:  mrst  epistle  of  st.  petei;.  109 

(5)  Finally,  it  was  the  duty  uf  all  to  be  united,  sympa- 
thising, fraternal,  compassionate,  humble-minded,'  requiting 
good  for  evil  and  blessing  for  abuse,  as  being  heirs  of  bless- 
ing. This  lesson  is  enforced  by  a  free  citation  of  David's 
eulogy  of  government  of  the  tongue,  and  of  a  peaceful  dis- 
position as  the  secret  of  a  blessed  life,  as  well  as  by  the 
truth  that,  whether  just  or  evildoers,  we  live  under  the  eye 
of  God."  Who  then  could  harm  them  if  they  proved  them- 
selves zealots  of  the  good  ?  '^  Let  them  fear  nothing,  for 
there  is  a  beatitude  in  persecution  for  the  sake  of  righteous- 
ness if  the  will  of  God  should  so  decree.  Inward  holiness,* 
outward  readiness  to  vindicate  to  everyone  their  grounds  of 
hope  with  meekness  and  fear, ^  together  with  a  good  con- 
science, would  in  the  long  run  make  the  heathen  blush  at 
their  insulting  and  threatening  calumnies  against  the  holi- 
ness which  they  accused  of  criminality.  For,  contrary  to 
the  common  opinion  of  men,  it  is  better  to  suffer  (if  such  be 
God's  will)  unjustly  than  to  suffer  when  we  deserve  to  do  so. 
If  we  suffer  for  sins  which  we  have  not  committed,  so  did 
our  great  Example."  ''Because  Christ  also,  once  for  all, 
suffered  for  sin,  just  for  unjust,  that  He  may  lead  you  to 
God  ;  slain  in  the  flesh  but  quickened  to  life  in  the  spirit, 
wherein  also  He  went  and  preached^  to  the  spirits  in  prison^ 
who  once  were  disobedient  when  the  long-suffering  of  God 
awaited*^  in  the  days  of  Noah  while  the  Ark  was  a-preparing  ; 
by  entering  wherein,  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,'"  were  saved 
through  water  ; "  which  (water,  leg.  6)  also  as  an  antitype 
now  saveth  you — namely,  baptism — (not  putting  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  entreaty  for  a  good  conscience 
towards  God  '^) — by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 

^  Le^.  Tarreii'dt^pove?,  J<,  A,  B,  C.  2  pg.  xxxiii.  12-16,  LXX. 

3  I  Pet.  iii.  13,  leg.  ^TjAwral,  ^,  A,  B,  C.  On  the  thought,  .see  a  magnificent  passage  in 
Chrysostom  (A"/,  ad  Cy^'iacutn)  :  "  Should  the  Empress  determine  to  banish  me,  let  her 
bani.sh  me.  The  earth  is  the  Lord's.  If  she  should  cast  me  into  the  sea,  let  her  cast  me  into 
the  sea.     I  will  remember  Jonah,"  etc. 

■>  I  Pet.  iii.  15,  leg.  tov  Xpiarbv,  ^,  A,  B,  C.  "But  sanctify  the  Christ  in  your  hearts  as 
Lord."' 

*  I  Pet.  iii.  15.  The  notion  that  legal  trials  are  intended  by  aTroAo-yta,  and  with  it  the 
inference  that  the  days  of  Trajan  are  alluded  to,  are  excluded  by  the  words  "to  e7'eryone 
that  asketh,"  etc. 

*  I  Pet.  iii.  8-17.  7  eK^pu^£v=€iiTjy'yeAt<7aT0,  "preached  the  Gospel." 
"^  i.e.,  ill  Hades.     Jude  6  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  4. 

'••  I  Pet.  iii.  20.  aTre^eSe';^eTo,  J<,  A,  B,  C,  K,  etc.  The  reading  oTra^  "once  for  all"  of 
Erasmus  and  the  R.  V.  is  quite  untenable. 

1"  J'his  indicates  the  motive  of  Christ's  Descent  into  Hades.  It  was  because  few  only  had 
been  saved  from  perishing.  And  this  is  the  view  of  such  Fathers  as  Clem.  Alex.  (Strom,  vi. 
6),  Origen,  Athanasius,  Jerome,  and  even,  in  his  milder  moods,  Augustine  (/',>.  ad  Evod. 
clxiv.). 

"  Perhaps  this  means  *' by  water  as  an  instrument."  i.e.,  because  the  water  floated  the 
Ark.  12  See  supra ^  p.  135,  note  2. 


no  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

on  the  right  hand  of  God,  having  gone  into  Heaven,'  angels 
and  authorities  and  powers  being  made  subject  unto  Him."' 

The  general  meaning  of  this  passage — Christ's  descent 
into  Hades  to  proclaim  the  Gospel  to  the  once  disobedient 
dead — is  to  every  unobscured  and  unsophisticated  mind  as 
clear  as  words  can  make  it.  Theologians  have  attempted 
to  get  rid  of  this  obvious  reference  by  explaining  it  of 
Christ  preaching  in  the  person  of  Noah  ;  or  by  making 
"He  preached"  mean  "He  announced  condemnation;''  or 
by  limiting  "  the  spirits  in  prison  "  to  Adam  and  the  Old 
Testament  saints;  or  by  rendering  ev  ^''^'^o-kj^  "^;/.  the  ivatch- 
tozaer  of  expectation  "  (!)  ;  or  by  supposing  that  Christ  only 
preached  to  those  spirits  who  repented  while  they  were  be- 
ing drowned  !  These  fittempts  arise  from  that  spirit  of 
system  which  ^vould  fain  be  more  orthodox  than  Scripture 
itself,  and  would  exclude  every  ground  of  future  hope  from 
the  revelation  of  a  love  too  loving  for  hearts  trained  in  bitter 
theologies.  What  was  the  effect  of  Christ's  preaching  we  arc 
not  told.  Some,  perhaps,  may  like  to  assume  that  the 
preaching  of  Christ  in  the  Unseen  World  was  unanimously 
rejected  by  the  once  disobedient  dead,  though  the  mention 
of  their  former  disobedience  seems  to  imply  the  inference 
that  they  did  hearken  now.  Others  can,  if  they  choose,  as- 
sert that  this  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  to  disembodied 
spirits  w^as  confined  to  antediluvian  sinners.  With  such  in- 
ferences we  are  unconcerned.  "It  is  ours,"  says  Alford, 
"to  deal  with  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  and  to  accept 
its  revelations  as  far  as  vouchsafed  to  us.  And  they  are 
vouchsafed  to  us  to  the  utmost  limit  of  legitimate  inference 
from  revealed  facts.  The  inference  every  intelligent  reader 
will  draw  from  the  fact  here  announced  :  it  is  not  purgatory  ; 
it  is  not  imiversal  restitution  ;  but  it  is  one  which  tJiro^vs  blessed 
light  on  one  of  the  darkest  enigmas  of  divine  justice :  the  cases 
where  the  final  doom  seems  infinitely  out  of  proportion 
to  the  lapse  wdiich  has  incurred  it."  On  the  other  hand,  we 
do  not  press  the  inference  of  Hermas  and  St.  Clemens  of 
Alexandria  by  teaching  that  this  passage  implies  also  other 
missions  of  Apostles  and  Saints  to  the  world  of  spirits.  We 
accept  the  words  of  Scripture,  and  leave  the  matter  there  in 
thankful  hope. 

Thus — continues  the  Apostle — as  a  preliminary  to  His 
exaltation,  did  Christ  suffer  for  us,  and  we  should  therefore 


bapt 


'  Cf.  I  Tim.  iii.  i6.     Perhaps,  as  Dr.  Plumptre  says,  the  precious  fragment  of  an  early 
(tismal  profession.  '^  i  Pet.  iii.  8-22.     Cf.  Col.  ii.  10-15. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER.  I  I  I 

gird  on  the  armour  of  the  same  resolve.  Suffering  (or 
course  Christian  suffering  is  implied)  is  a  deathblow  to  con- 
cupiscence. In  past  times  they  had  perpetrated  the  will  of 
the  Gentiles  in  *' wine-swillingsand  roysterings,"  '  in  lives  of 
wanton  excess,  and  idolatries  that  violated  the  eternal  law 
of  heaven  ;  and  now  the  Gentiles  reviled  them  in  astonish- 
ment that  they  would  no  longer  run  with  them  into  "tlie 
same  slough  of  dissoluteness.""  But  these  Gentile  oppo- 
nents ''shall  give  an  account  to  Him  that  is  ready  to  judge 
the  living  and  the  dead.  For  to  this  end,  even  to  the  dead 
was  the  Gospel  preached,  that,  as  regards  men,  they  may  be 
judged  in  tlie  flesh,  but  may  live  as  regards  God  in  the 
spirit." 

In  the  last  verse  we  again  encounter  the  ruthlessness  of 
commentators.  "The  dead"  to  whom  the  Gospel  was 
preached  are  taken  to  mean  something  quite  different  from 
"the  dead"Avho  are  to  give  an  account.  The  dead  to 
whom  the  Gospel  is  preached  are  explained  away  into  "  sin- 
ners "or  "the  Gentiles,"  or  "some  who  are  now  dead." 
Augustine,  as  might  liave  been  expected,  leads  the  w^ay  in 
one  wrong  direction,  and  Calvin  in  another.  Another  view 
— which  makes  this  verse  mean  that  "  Christ  will  judge  even 
the  dead  as  well  as  the  living,  because  the  dead  too  will  not 
have  been  without  an  opportunity  to  receive  His  Gospel  " 
— is  indeed  tenable.  To  me,  however,  judging  of  the  feel- 
ings of  the  Apostle,  from  his  boundless  gratitude  for  the 
opportunities  of  obtaining  forgiveness,  and  from  the  love 
which  he  inculcates  towards  all  mankind,  the  connexion 
seems  to  be,  "The  heathen,  in  all  their  countless  myriads, 
who  seem  to  be  hopelessly  perishing  around  you,  Avill  be 
judged  ; — but  the  very  reason  Avhy  the  Gospel  was  preached 
by  Christ  to  the  dead  was  in  order  that  this  judgment  may 
be  founded  on  principles  of  justice,  that  they  may  be  judged 
[KpiOiocri)  in  their  human  capacity  as  sinners,  and  yet  may 
live  {^oio-i)  to  God  as  regards  the  diviner  part  of  their  na- 
tures ; " — if,  that  is,  they  accept  this  offer  of  the  Gospel  to 
them  even  beyond  the  grave.  ^ 

(6)  "But  the  end  of  all  things" — and  therefore  of  ca- 
lumny and  suffering  and  heathen  persecution  in  this  transi- 
tory life — "is  at  hand.  Be  sound-minded,  therefore,  and  be 
sober  unto  prayers,  before   all  things  having  intense  love 


'  I  Pet.  iv.  3,  olvo^Xvyiat.^,  Kco/Ltoi9-  .     .    .    ■       ^  ^  P***  '^*  4'  o.<TiarCa<!  avaxvffw. 

3  Analogous  elements  of  thought  as  to  the  disciplinary  intent  of  even  the  severest  punish- 
ments may  be  seen  in  i  Cor.  v.  5  ;  xi.  31,  32. 


112  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

towards  one  another,  because  love  covereth  a  multitude  of 
sins."  ^  Then  come  fresh  exhortations  to  unmurmuring 
hospitality  (so  necessary  for  poor  and  wandering  Christian 
teachers),  and  to  a  right  stewardship  of  God's  various  gifts 
for  the  common  benefit  to  the  glory  of  God  through  Jesus 
Christ.  They  were  not  to  regard  the  conflagration'  which 
w^as  burning  among  them  to  serve  as  their  test,  as  though  it 
were  something  strange.  They  ought  rather  to  rejoice  be- 
cause a  fellowship  in  Christ's  sufferings  would  in  the  same 
proportion  involve  a  fellowship  in  His  glory.  Reproach  in 
the  name  of  Christ  is  a  beatitude.  Let  none  of  them  suffer 
as  a  murderer,  thief,  malefactor,  or  intrusive  meddler ;  but 
punishment  for  refusing  to  disown  the  name  of  Christian^ 
is  not  a  thing  for  which  to  blush,  but  rather  to  glorify  God. 
It  showed  them  to  be,  as  it  were,  under  the  very  shadow  of 
the  wings  of  the  Shechinah.  The  time  for  judgment  had 
come.  If  it  began  from  the  house  of  God,  what  would  be 
the  end  of  those  who  disobeyed  the  Gospel  of  God  ?  And  if 
the  righteous  be  saved  with  difficulty,  the  impious  and  sinner 
— where  shall  he  appear  ?  ^  So  then  let  even  those  that  suf- 
fer commit  their  lives  unto  God,  as  to  a  faithful  Creator,  in 
well-doing.^ 

Tlie  remainder  of  the  Epistle  is  more  specific.  It  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  elders  by  St.  Peter — as  a  fellow-elder  and 
witness  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Christ,  and  therefore  also  a 
partaker  of  the  glory  about  to  be  revealed.  He  exhorts 
them  to  tend  the  flock  of  God  ®  among  them  with  willing 
and  self-denying  oversight,  "  not  as  lording  it  over  their  al- 

^  Proy.  X.  12  (cf.  xvii.  9),  where  it  is  "all  sins."  James  v.  20  quotes  the  same  words  but 
perhaps  in  a  different  sense  ;  not,  as  here,  of  love  throwing  a  covering  over  the  sins  of  others 
by  forbearance  (cf.  i  Cor.  xiii.  5,  6),  but  of  love  hiding  our  own  sins  from  view. 

2  TTvpcitrei.  Were  it  not  that  this  word  occurs  in  the  LXX.  of  Proverbs  (.x.-^vii.  21),  a  book 
with  which  St.  Peter  shows  himself  so  familiar,  we  might  suppose  that  he  and  St.  John  (Rev. 
xviii.  9,  i8)  were  reminded  of  it  by  the  burning  of  Rome. 

3  Perhaps  we  should  read  the  ignorant  heatl^n  di.stortion,  Chrestian  (see  Life  and  IVoi'k 
of  St.  PnuL  i.  301;  with  X- 

■*  Prov.  ix.  31.  The  words  "upon  earth"  of  the  original  Hebrew,  show  that  temporal 
judgments  (as  in  Matt.  xxiv.  22)  were  prominent  in  the  writer's  mind  (cf.  Jer.  xxv.  29).  Chris- 
tians were  suffering  under  the  Neronian  persecution,  but  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
disintegration  of  the  Roman  Empire  were  not  far  off. 

5  I  Pet.  iv.  7-19.  The  latter  verses  (12-17)  ^re  not  a  repetition  of  iii.  13,  iv.  6,  becau.se 
there  the  affiictions  were  spoken  of  in  relation  to  their  persecutors,  and  here  in  relation  to  their 
own  feelings  (cf.  Matt.  v.  11).  The  /ixrj  ^evi^eaOe  is  equivalent  to  *'  make  yourself  at  home  in," 
"regard  as  perfectly  natural."  In  ver.  15,  .St.  Peter  seems  to  have  coined  the  picturesaue 
word  aX.\.OTpt.oenL(TKonoi.  ''other  people's  bishops."  (The  nearest  approach  to  the  word  is 
Plato's  aAAoTptoTTpa-y/xocrwi/r},  "meddlesomeness.")  The  attempt  (Hilgenfeld,  Kinleit.  630) 
to  render  this  "  informers"  {delator),  because  informers  were  legally  punishable  in  the  days 
of 'J'rajan  (Plin.  Pancg.  34,  35),  has  nothing  in  its  favour.  The  word  is  a  needful  warning 
against  the  temptation  to  a  prying  religiosity.  The  ap^aaOai.  of  ver.  17,  proving  as  it  does 
that'Jerusalem  was  not  yet  destroyed,  is  another  death-blow  to  all  hypotheses  as  to  the  late 
date  of  the  Epistle. 

*  iToi(Jiati>e  TO.  iTp6^ara  fxov,  John  xxi.  16. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER.  113 

lotted  charge,'  but  proving  themselves  examples  of  the 
flock  ;  then,  at  the  manifestation  of  the  chief  Shepherd,  they 
should  carry  off  as  their  prize  ''the  amaranthine  chaplet" 
of.  the  conqueror's  glory.''  The  younger,  too,  were  to  be 
submissive  to  the  elders,  "yea,  all  of  you,  being  submissive 
to  one  another,  tie  on  humility  like  a  knotted  dress,^  be- 
cause God  arrays  Himself  against  the  overweening,  but  to 
the  humble  He  giveth  grace."  Be  humbled,  then,  under  the 
strong  hand  of  God,  that  He  may  exalt  you  in  season,  cast- 
ing, once  for  all,  all  your  anxiety  upon  Him,  because  He 
careth  for  you.  Be  sober  !  watch  !  because  your  adversary,* 
the  Devil,  like  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about  seeking  whom 
he  may  swallow  up.  Against  whom  take  your  stand,  firm 
in  the  faith,  knowing  that  the  very  same  sufferings  are  run- 
ning their  full  course  for  your  band  of  brethren  in  the 
world.  But  the  God  of  all  grace,  Who  called  you  unto  His 
eternal  glory  in  Christ  Jesus,  after  you  have  suffered  a  little, 
Himself  shall  perfect,  establish,  strengthen,  place  you  on  a 
sure  foundation.  To  Him  be  dominion  for  the  ages  of 
ages.     Amen.® 

"  By  Silvanus,  your  faithful  brother,  as  I  esteem  him,''  I 
write  to  you  in  few  words,  exhorting,  and  confirming  by  my 
testimony,  that  this  is  the  true  grace  of  God."  In  this  take 
your  stand  ! " 

"She,  who  is  co-elect  in  Babylon,  saluteth  you,"  and 
Marcus,  my  son.  Salute  one  another  with  a  kiss  of  love. 
Peace  to  you  all  in  Christ  Jesus.     Amen." 

1  i.e.,  their  "parishes,"  not  ''  the.clergy." 

2  a/xapaj^Tii'Oi',  not  afJiO-pavTO^,  as  in  i.  4  : — 

"Their  crowns  inwove  with  amaranth  and  gold, 
Immortal  amaranth  ,  .  ." — Milton. 
not  like  fading  Nemean  parsley,  or  Isthmian  pine. 

3  'EyKoix^uxraa-Oe,  Col.  iii.  12,  'EvSva-acrOe,     KofiPoyfxa — "an  apron"  worn  by  slaves. 

*  "  Humility  is  a  vessel  of  graces,"  Aug.  Prov.  iii.  34. 

*  Matt.  V.  25,  d»'TtSt/cos,  "JI3ty. 

*  Pet.  V.  i-ii. 

"^  Kronmiiller  (in  Lange's  Comvtentary)  strangely  supposes  that  this  can  mean,  "I  con- 
jecture that  you  will  receive  this  Epistle  by  the  hands  of  Silvanus  !  " 

"  This  which  I  have  written  to  you.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  there  is  any  intention  here 
to  ratify  the  orthodoxy  of  St.  Paul's  teachings,  though  all  the  Episrie  shows  how  deeply  the 
true  St.  Peter  (so  unlike  the  fictitious  Peter  of  the  Clementines)  reverenced  them. 

3  I  Pet.  V.  12,  (TTTfTe,  J<{,  A,  B. 

10  'H  a-uve»cAe/cTT).  Some  take  this  to  mean  "the  co-elect  lady" — i.e.,  Peter's  wife  (cf.  i 
Cor.  xiv.  5).  But  surely  a  Jew  would  hardly  have  sent  a  greeting  from  his  wife — a  poor  Gali- 
lean woman — to  all  these  Churches,  or  have  described  her  as  simply  ^  ef  Ba/SuAwn.  It  is 
much  more  natural  to  understand  eK/cArjcrio,  meaning  the  Church  oi  Rome.  It  is  true  that 
St.  Peter  has  not  used  that  word,  even  in  his  salutation,  but  it  might  none  the  less  be  in  his 
thoughts,  just  as  St.  Luke  (in  Acts  xxvii.  14)  says  awrrj  of  the  ship,  though  he  has  been  using 
the  word  irAotoi'.     On  Marcus  and  Babylon,  see  ante,  p.  113. 


114  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANErY. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  PETER. 

"Petrus  magis  magisque  opus  esse  statuit  admonitione  propter  ingruentem  corruptionem 
malorum  hominum." — Bhngel. 

In  reading  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  we  are  reading  a 
book  wliich  even  a  critic  so  advanced  as  M.  Renan  admits 
to  be  "one  of  tlie  Avritings  of  the  New  Testament  which  is 
most  anciently  and  the  most  unanimously  cited  as  authentic.'" 
In  turning  to  the  Second  Epistle  we  are  met  by  problems  of 
acknowledged  difficulty,  and  have  to  consider  the  claims  of 
a  document  which  the  same  writer  pronounces  to  be  "  cer- 
tainly apocryphal,"  and  of  which  he  says  that  "among  true 
critics  he  does  not  think  that  it  has  a  single  defender." 
Such  a  remark  is  easy  to  make  ;  but  critics  like  Schmid, 
Guericke,  Windischmann,  Thiersch,  Alford,  and  Bruckner 
are  in  learning,  if  not  in  genius,  as  much  entitled  to  decide 
such  a  point  ex  cathedra  as  M.  Renan.  and  they,  after  delib- 
erate examination,  do  accept  the  Epistle  as  genuine,  and 
offer  in  its  defence  not  a  contemptuous  dictum,  but  a  serious 
argument.  On  the  other  hand,  although  it  is  discourteous 
and  unwarrantable  to  pronounce  the  Epistle  to  be  so  cer- 
tainly spurious  that  nothing  but  prejudice  or  ignorance 
could  maintain  its  genuineness,  neither  ought  its  defenders 
to  argue  as  though  any  hesitation  as  to  its  genuineness  was 
an  impious  arraignment  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  To  say  that 
"  there  is  scarcely  a  single  wanting  of  all  antiquity,  sacred  or 
profane,  which  must  not  be  given  up  as  spurious  if  the  Sec- 
ond Epistle  of  St.  Peter  be  not  received  as  a  genuine  writing 
of  the  Apostle,  and  as  a  part  of  Holy  Writ ;  " — to  assert  that 
we  receive  it  on  "  the  testimony  of  the  Universal  Church," 
which  is  "  the  Spouse  and  Body  of  Christ  enlightened  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  ;  "—and  that  if  it  be  "not  the  Word  of 
God,  but  the  work  of  an  impostor,  then,  with  reverence  be 
it  said,  Christ's  promise  to  His  Church  has  failed,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  not  been  given  to  guide  her  into  all  truth," 
— is  to  use  a  style,  I  cannot  say  of  "argument,"  but  of  do^^- 
matising  traditionalism, which  perilously  confuses  a  thousand 
separate  issues.  Such  assertions,  if  listened  to,  would  end 
in  making  all  criticism  impossible,  and  in  reducing  all  in- 

1  V Ajtteclnist,  p.  vi 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.   PETER  S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       I  I  5 

quiry  to  mediaeval  torpor.  They  can  serve  no  purpose  but 
to  damage  in  many  minds  the  cause  of  religion.  They  con- 
found the  eternal  truths  of  Christianity  with  uncertain  de- 
tails. They  imperil  the  impregnable  fortress  of  Revelation 
by  identifying  its  defence  with  that  of  its  weakest  and  most 
uncertain  outposts.  To  talk  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  St. 
Peter — if,  indeed,  it  was  not  the  work  of  that  Apostle — as 
"  a  shameless  forgery,"  and  of  its  w^riter  as  ''an  impostor," 
and  of  his  motives  as  showing  "intentional  fraud"  and 
"  cunning  fabrication,"  '  is  to  use  language  which  only  tends 
to  obscure  the  critical  faculty.  Such  a  style  of  statement 
is  an  anachronism.  It  cannot  be  said  too  strongly  that  it  is 
''  inexpedient  to  encumber  the  discussion  by  an  attempted 
rcductio  ad  horribile  of  one  of  the  alternatives."  *'' 

The  question  of  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  must  be 
regarded  as  unsettled  until  the  arguments  adduced  against 
it  by  a  serious  criticism  can  be  met  by  counter-arguments 
of  a  criticism  equally  serious.  Its  acceptance  cannot  be 
founded  upon  assertions  to  which  criticism,  as  such,  can 
pay  no  heed.  That  the  writing  known  as  the  Second  Epis- 
tle'of  St.  Peter  is  canonical — that  for  fourteen  centuries  it 
has  been  accepted,  and  rightly  accepted,  by  the  Church  as 
a  part  of  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture — is  not  denied.  I  say 
rightly  accepted,  because  the  Church  would  not  have  so  re- 
ceiv^ed  it  if  she  had  not  felt  that  it  was  ''profitable  for  doc- 
trine, for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness." But  to  say  that  in  its  present  form  it  is  absolutely 
the  work  of  St.  Peter — and  that,  if  not  genuine,  the  Church 
has  "  been  imposed  upon  by  what  must,  in  that  case,  be  re- 
garded as  a  Satanic  device''  {}),  is  to  claim  a  monopoly  of 
the  critical  faculty  which  is  refuted  by  every  page  of  tho 
history  of  exegesis.  On  all  such  questions  Churches  have 
erred,  and  may  err.  The  Second  Epistle  is  accepted  as  St. 
Peter's  mainly  on  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  the  fourt!i 
century;'  but  the  Church  of  the  fourth  century  had  not 
tlie  least  pretence  to  greater  authority,*and  had  afar  smaller 
amount  of  critical  knowledge,  than  the  Church  of  the  nine- 
teenth. The  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  was  prom- 
ised not  to  one  age  only,  but  to  the  Church  of  all  ages,  even 
to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  but  the  lessons  of  century  after 
century  ought  to  have  taught  us  that  guidance  into  all  neces- 
sary spiritual  truth  is  a  very  different  thing  from  critical  in- 

1  Wordsworth,  Introd.  ;  Fronmiiller,  §  3.  2  \>^_  Ellicott's  Commefttary,  iii.  437. 

3  It  was  admitted  into  the  Canon  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  A.u.  363. 


I  l6  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

fallibility.  Theologians  wlio  usurp  the  right  to  speak  with 
inspired  positiveness  on  questions  whicli  are  still  unsettled, 
not  only  render  their  own  pretensions  liable  to  defeat,  but 
seriously  endamage  a  sacred  cause.  Nothing  has  gone  far- 
ther to  shake  iny  conviction  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epis- 
tle than  the  dangerous  plausibility  of  many  of  the  arguments 
adduced  by  its  defenders.  They  have  so  obviously  ap- 
proached the  question  with  their  minds  made  up  beforehand; 
they  have  shown  themselves  so  eager  to  establish  a  case  at 
all  costs  ;  they  have  treated  as  so  unimportant  the  absence 
of  that  evidence  to  which  in  other  cases  they  attach  such  ex- 
treme importance  ;  they  have  been  tempted  to  use  argu- 
ments so  painfully  inconclusive,  and  to  make  light  of  coun- 
ter-considerations so  undeniably  strong,  that  any  one  who 
takes  the  same  side  with  them  may  well  fear  lest  he  too 
should  sink  into  the  advocate,  and  forget  the  love  of  simple 
truth.  The  supporters  of  the  Epistle  have  done  far  more 
than  its  assailants  to  deepen  my  own  uncertainty  w^hether  it 
can  be  regarded  as  the  direct  work  of  the  Apostle. 

For  what  are  the  facts  with  which  we  must  start  in  con- 
sidering the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  ?  Surely  common 
honesty  compels  us  to  acknowledge  that  of  all  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  it  is  the  one  for  which  we  can  produce 
the  smallest  amount  of  external  evidence,  and  which  at  the 
same  time  offers  the  greatest  number  of  internal  difficulties. 

As  regards  the  external  evidence,  the  Epistle  is  not 
quoted,  and  is  not  certainly  referred  to,  by  a  single  writer  in 
the  first  or  second  century.  Neither  Polycarp,  nor  Ignatius, 
nor  Barnabas,  nor  Clement  of  Rome,  nor  Justin  Martyr, 
nor  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  nor  Irenseus,  nor  Tertullian, 
nor  Cyprian  can  be  proved  even  to  allude  to  it.  It  is  not 
found  in  the  Peshito  Syriac,  nor  in  the  Vetus  Itala.  It  is 
unknown  to  the  Muratorian  Canon.  During  the  first  two 
centuries  the  only  traces  of  it,  if  traces  they  can  be  called, 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Pastor  of  Hermas,^  and  in  a  recently 
discovered  passage  of  Melito  of  Sardis  :  but  even  these  arc 
of  so  distant  and  general  a  nature  that  it  is  impossible  to 
determine  whether  w^e  should  regard  them  as  reminiscences 
of  the  language  of  the  Epistle,  or  accidental  approximations 
to  it.  But  even  if  we  grant  all  the  parallels  adduced  by 
Dietlien,  the  concession  would  be  unfavourable  rather  than 
otherwise  to  the   genuineness  of  the  Epistle  ; — he  ruins  his 

1  Hernias,  iii.  2  ;  2  Pet.  li.  20. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.  PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       II7 

own  case  by  proving  too  much.  For  if  the  writers  of  the 
first  and  second  centuries  did  indeed  know^  the  Epistle,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  not  one  of  them  should  have  hinted  at 
the  authority  which  it  derived  from  the  name  of  its  author. 
When  we  come  down  to  later  writers,  we  find  that,  in  all  his 
learned  w^orks,  it  is  not  once  alluded  to  by  St.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  who  even  seems  to  exclude  it  by  the  expression, 
''  Peter  in  the  Epistle."  ^  Origen  knew  of  it,  but,  since  he 
uses  the  same  expression  as  St.  Clement,  seems — when  writ- 
ing accurately — to  question  its  genuineness;'  although,  if 
■\ve  may  trust  the  loose  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus,  he 
refers  to  it  as  St.  Peter's  when  he  alludes  to  it  popularly  in 
a  casual  quotation.  Firmilian  (f  270),  a  friend  of  Origen, 
is  the  first  person  w^ho,  in  a  letter  to  Cyprian,  extant  only  in 
a  Latin  version,  refers  to  it ;  but  neither  is  this  letter  beyond 
suspicion,  nor  is  the  reference  decisive.^  Didymus,  in  a 
Latin  translation  of  his  commentary,  calls  the  Epistle  '"''  fal- 
sata"  and  says  *'  that  it  is  not  in  the  Canon."  *  Eusebius 
knew"  of  it,  but  only  recognised  one  genuine  Epistle.^  It 
was  rejected  by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  was  still  re- 
garded as  uncertain  in  the  times  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nazian- 
zus."  It  must,  therefore,  be  admitted  that  the  evidence  in 
its  favour  is  exceptionally  weak.  The  First  Epistle  was  al- 
most universally  recognised  by  the  ancient  Church  ;  the 
Second  was  partly  controverted,  partly  ignored  —  and 
among  those  who  ignored  or  rejected  it  were  some  Fathers 
of  the  greatest  learning,  and  of  the  keenest  critical  acumen. 
These  doubts  were  so  far  silenced,  that  it  w^as  on  the 
whole  passively  accepted  by  men  like  Athanasius,  Basil, 
Jerome,  and  Augustine,  and  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century  was  declared  to  be  canonical  by  the  Councils  of 
Laodicea  (a.d.  2)^2>)^  Hippo  (a.d.  393),  and  Carthage  (a.d. 
396).  But  surely  this  tardy  recognition  is  a  suspicious  cir- 
cumstance. If  the  repeated  references  to  most  of  the  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament  Canon  by  Fathers  of  the  first 
three  centuries  be  rightly  regarded  as  proofs  of  their  genu- 
ineness, then  the  absence  or  uncertainty  of  any  reference 
during  the  same  period  must  so  far  be   unfavourable.     Im- 


'  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  ili.  p.  562,  ed.  Potter.  Eusebius  (//.  K.  vi.  14)  says  that  Clement, 
in  his  Ilypotyposes,  commented  both  on  the  acknowledged  and  the  uncertain  books  of  the  N. 
T.,  not  even  passing  by  "  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  :  "  but  that  can  hardly  mean  this  Epistle. _ 

-  "Peter  has  left  only  one  generally  acknowledged  Epistle — perhaps  also  a  second,  for  this 
is  considered  doubtful  [a.<TT(a  fie  /cat  he^vT^p6.v.,  a/A'/)iPaAAeTat.  yap)."  (Orig.  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E. 
vi.  25.)  3  Rpp.  Cypr.  75. 

■•  The  word  which  he  used  was  probably  vivoQij^vTo-i,  "has  been  accoiuited  spurious." 

'  Euseb.  //.  E.  ili.  25.  ^  Greg.  Naz.  Carm.  33,  vs.  35. 


Il8  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

portance  is  sometimes  attached  to  fourth  century  decisions 
by  saying  that  evidence  was  then  extant  which  has  not  come 
down  to  us.  The  proposition  might  be  disputed  ;  but  what- 
ever such  evidence  may  have  been,  it  did  not  remove  tlie 
doubts  which  prevailed  in  the  great  schools  of  Alexandria 
and  Antioch,  as  represented  by  such  eminent  scholars  as 
Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsues- 
tia.  The  intrinsic  value  of  the  Epistle,  and  the  growing 
habit  of  loosely  referring  to  it  as  '*  St.  Peter's,"  would  lead 
to  its  gradual  admission  without  any  further  debate,  at  a 
period  when  competent  critics  were  few  and  far  between. 
St.  Jerome  did  more  than  any  man  to  hasten  the  acceptance 
of  the  Epistle  by  admitting  it  into  the  Vulgate.  Yet  he  was 
too  able  not  to  observe,  and  too  candid  not  to  admit,  that  it 
differs  from  the  First  Epistle  in  style,  character,  and  struc- 
ture of  words.'  Further  than  this,  he  tells  us  that  "most  men  " 
in  his  day  denied  that  St.  Peter  wrote  it,  "  on  account  of  the 
dissonance  of  its  style  with  the  former."  He  is  the  only  person 
in  the  first  four  centuries  who  offers  any  intelligible  theory 
of  that  striking  divergence.  This  he  does  by  saying  that 
"  from  the  necessity  of  things  he  made  use  of  different 
interpreters."  This  is  indeed  to  accept  the  Epistle  as  genu- 
ine, but  with  the  important  modification  that  it  is  either  a 
translation  from  an  Aramaic  original,  or  that  the  thoughts 
only  are  St.  Peter's,  while  the  words  belong  to  some  one 
else.  If  this  be  admitted,  what  becomes  of  recent  attempts 
to  show  that  the  style  and  phraseology  are  exactly  what  we 
should  expect  ? 

It  is  idle  to  lay  much  stress  on  the  fact  that  no  further 
doubt  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  was  expressed 
during  long  centuries  of  critical  torpor.  During  those  cen- 
turies there  was  no  criticism  worth  speaking  of,  because 
criticism  could  only  register  the  dictated  conclusions 
of  a  Church  which  punished  original  inquiry  as  presump- 
tuous and  heretical.  If  any  one  expressed  an  indepen- 
dent opinion,  however  true,  the  Church  and  the  world 
combined  against  him.  But  the  moment  that  "the  deep 
slumber  of  decided  opinions "  was  broken  by  the  Refor- 
mation—the moment  that  criticism  ceased  to  be  confronted 
by  "  the  syllogism  of  violence" — then  tlie  doubts  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistle  began  to  revive.  Erasmus, 
Luther,   and  Calvin   freely  express    them,   and   they  were 

1  Jer.  Ep.  ad  Hedib.  ii.     Compare  De  Virr.  lllustr.  i. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.  PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       I  1  cy 

shared  by  Cajetan,  Grotius,  Scaliger,  and  Salmasius.  In 
modern  times,  since  the  days  of  Semler,  an  increasing  num- 
ber of  critics  have  decided  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
Epistle,  including  not  only  Baur,  Schwegler,  Ililgenfeld, 
Mayerhotf,  Bleek,  Davidson,  Messner,  Reuss,  but  even  such 
conservative  theologians  as  Neander,  Weiss,  and  Huther, 
while  Bertholdt,  Uliman,  Bunsen,' and  even  Lange  "  hold 
that,  though  genuine  in  part,  it  has  been  largely  inter- 
polated. 

The  last  supposition,  which  might  remove  many  difficul- 
ties, can  hardly  be  accepted.  The  body  of  the  Epistle  mu^t 
stand  or  fall  as  a  whole,  for  it  is  singularly  compact  and 
homogeneous.^  The  writer  has  stated  his  twofold  object 
in  the  last  two  verses.  One  of  these  objects  was  ivarning: 
it  was  that,  by  being  put  upon  their  guard,  the  readers 
might  not  fall  away  from  their  firm  position  through  being 
misled  by  the  error  of  the  lawless.  The  other  object  w^as 
cxhflj'tatioji:  ^'  But  grow  in  the  grace  and  knowledge  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  These  objects  are 
kept  steadily  in  view,  and  the  structure  of  the  letter  is  more 
distinctly  articulated  than  that  of  the  First. 

The  outline  of  the  letter  is  as  follows  : — After  the  greet- 
ing (i.  I,  2)  the  writer  enforces  his  hortatory  object  by  urg- 
ing the  attainment  of  /////  knowledge^  which  is  the  consum- 
mation of  Christian  growth,  and  the  essential  of  final 
salvation  (3 — 11).  Elence  it  is  his  wish  to  utilise  the-  brief 
time  which  remains  to  him  for  reminding  them  of  this  truth 
(12 — 15),  a  truth  of  which  they  might  be  convinced,  because 
Peter,  with  others,  had  been,  as  it  were,  an  initiated  eye- 
witness of  the  Transfiguration,  and  had  heard  the  voice 
which  was  then  borne  from  heaven  (16 — 18);  and  because 
they  all  possessed  the  word  of  prophecy  as  a  surer  witness, 
to  which  they  would  do  well  to  listen  as  to  the  voice  of  in- 
spiration (19 — 21). 

He  thus  passes  quite  naturally  to  the  topic  of  warning. 
False  teachers  would  bring  in  ''  sects  of  perdition,"  and  he 
describes  these  fnlse  teachers  in  their  successful  blasphemies 
and  their  certain  punishment,  like  that  which  fell  on  the 
world  at  the  time  of  the  Flood  and  on  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Cities  of  the  Plain  (ii.  i — 9);  though,  as  in  all  such  in- 
stances, the  pious  should  be  delivered  (5,  7,  9.)    None,  how- 

1  Ignatius,  p.»i75.  ^  Afostol.  Zrii.  i.  152. 

3  MayerhoflPs  remark,  that  the  Epistle  is  clumsy  and  illogical,  i-.  quite  false.      See  Bn'ick- 
ner,  Eif/l.  §  i  ;   Hofmann,  p.  121  ;  Huther,  p.  306. 


I20  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

everj  were  more  deserving  of  God's  vengeance  than  these 
impure,  disdainful,  self-corrupting  railers — fools  who  rushed 
in  where  angels  feared  to  tread  (lo — 12),  whose  vileness  and 
perniciousness  are  described  (13,  14),  and  whose  apostasy 
resembles  that  of  Balaam  (15,  16).  After  using  various  in- 
dignant images  (17),  to  illustrate  their  insolence,  wanton- 
ness, and  cunning — which,  while  it  promised  liberty,  only 
involved  a  deadly  servitude  (18,  19) — he  says  that  their  pre- 
vious knowledge  of  Christ  is  the  worst  aggravation  of  their 
horrible  apostasy  (20,  22). 

He  is  therefore  writing  once  more  to  remind  his  readers 
of  previous  lessons  (iii.  i,  2),  and  especially  to  warn  them 
against  those  scoifers  who  sneered  at  the  promised  coming 
of  Christ  (35  4),  and  ignored  the  fact,  that  as  the  world  had 
perished  by  water,  so  should  it  hereafter  perish  by  fire  (5  — 
7).  Let  the  brethren  remember  that  one  day  is  with  the 
Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  that  His  delays  are  due  to 
His  mercy.  But  the  dreadful  day  of  dissolution  should  come 
(8,  9).  On  this  thought  he  bases  the  exhortation  to  them  to 
be  blameless,  as  those  who  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth,  and  to  make  a  right  use  of  God's  long  suffering,  in 
accordance  with  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul — whose  writings 
they  must  be  careful  not  to  wrest  into  a  wrong  sense  (10 — 
16).  Then  into  two  final  verses  he  compresses  his  recapitu- 
lation of  the  two  chief  topics  of  the  letter,  together  with  the 
final  doxology  (17,  18). 

Such,  then — so  marked  by  unity  and  coherence — is  this 
remarkable  letter,  which  the  Church  could  ill  afford  to  lose, 
and  which  is  full  of  impassioned  warning  and  eloquent  ex- 
hortation. We  have  seen  how  weak  is  the  external  evidence 
in  its  favour ;  are  there  any  decisive  phenomena  to  which 
we  can  appeal  by  way  of  internal  evidence  of  its  authen- 
ticity ? 

That  it  resembles  the  First  Epistle  in  the  use  of  some 
peculiar  expressions  is  certain.  The  word  for  "conversa- 
tion," /.<!'.,  general  mode  of  life;*  the  remarkable  word  for 
an  eye-witness,  which  is  also  the  word  for  one  initiated  into 
the  mysteries  ;"  the  expressions  "to  carry  off  as  a  prize,"  " 
"  spotless  and  blameless,"  *  and  "  to  walk  in  lusts,"  ^  are  com- 
mon to  both  Epistles,  and  are  almost  unknown  to  the, rest 

1  a.va(TTpo4>ri,  ava<TTpe<l)e(T6at  (i  Pet.  i.  15,  18,  «itc.  ;   2  Pet.  ii.  7,  iii    ii). 

2  eTroTTTY]?.  enoTTTeveii'  (i  Pet.  ii.  3,  iii.  2  ;  2  Pet.  i.  16). 

3  KOfjii^€<jQai  (i  Pet.  i.  9  ;   v.  4  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  13).  • 
'^  aatriKoL  Kai  aixiI}fjuy)roi  (i  Pet.  i-  iQ  I  2  Pet.  iii.  14). 

^  iTop€vea9ai  ev  en-idv/jiiai!  (2  Pet.  ii.  10). 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.   PETER  S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       121 

of  the  New  Testament/  If  tlie  general  style  were  the  same, 
these  would  have  weight.  Their  weight  is  small  when  we 
remember  (i.)  that  the  writer  of  the  Second  Epistle  must, 
on  any  supposition,  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the 
First,^  and  when  Ave  find  (ii.)  that  the  Second  Epistle  abounds 
in  expressions  peculiar  to  itself,  and  (iii.)  that  it  is  confessed- 
ly written  in  a  style  of  marked  difference. 

The  peculiarity  of  many  expressions,  of  which  the  ma- 
jority are  unique,''  must  strike  the  most  careless  reader  of 
the  original.  "To  acquire  faith  by  lot ;'"  "to  give  things 
w^hich  tend  to  life  and  piety;"'  "  to  bring  in  all  haste;"" 
"  to  furnish  an  abundant  supply  of  virtue  ; "  ''  "  to  receive  ob- 
livion ;  "  ®  "  to  furnish  an  abundant  entrance  ; "  "  "  the  pres- 
ent truth  ;"  ^"^  "to  bring  in  factions  of  perdition;"^'  "the 
judgment  is  not  idle,  the  destruction  is  not  drowsily  nod- 
ding ;" '^  "to  walk  in  desire  of  pollution  ;" '^  "to  walk  be- 
hind the  flesh  ;"  ^*  "to  esteem  luxurious  wantonness  in  the 
daytime  as  a  pleasure  ;"  '"  "eyes  full  of  an  adulteress;'"" 
"  insatiable  of  sin  ;  "  ^'^  "  a  heart  trained  in  covetousnesses; "  '^ 
"  the  mirk  of  the  darkness  ; "  '^  "  treasured  with  fire  ;  "  ^^  "  to 
fall  from  their  own  steadfastness  ; "  ^'  "  chains  of  darkness  ;  " 
"to  calcine  to  ashes;"  "to  hurl  to  Tartarus;"  "to  blas- 
pheme glories  ; "  "  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  hurtlingly; "  " 
"  the  elements  being  consumed  melt  away."  "  Such  are  a 
few  of  the  striking  and  even  startling  phrases  which  in  the 
course  of  three  short  chapters  stamp  tlie  style  with  an  in- 
tense peculiarity.  Nothing  analogous  to  these  phrases  is 
found  in  the  First  Epistle.  It  may  be  pleaded  that,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  some  of  these 
words  are  due  to  the  new  subjects  with  which  the  Apostle 

1  To  these  may  be  added  aTrdOea-is  (i  Pet.  iii.  21 ;  2  Pet.  i.  14)  ;  irewavTM  a/iapria?  (r  Pet. 
iv.  I  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  12)  ;  ade<r/AOS  (i  Pet.  iv.  3,  a^e'fxiTo?,  2  Pet.  ii.  7,  iii.  17). 

-  2  Pet.  iii.  I.  3  There  are  twenty  kapax  legoneita  in  this  brief  Epistle. 

*  \axov(Ti  iriaTiv,  i.  i.  ^  Ta  Trpb?  ^a>»}v  Kai  evcrejieLav  deSuyptjixevrf  (act.),  i.  3. 

8  anovSr^v  naaoiv  napeuTeviyKa.VTi<;.  i.  5. 

'  67rt;(opi77>7(raTe  iv  rrj  Trioret  vyiwv  rr\v  dperrji',  2  Pet.  i.  5.  *•  Xr\Qr\v  Aa^oiv,  i.  9. 

®  e.iTi)(opy]yr\9r)(T^rai  vixlv  17  eicroSo;,  i.  ii.  '"  17  napovaa  aA7j6'eia,  1.  12. 

!•  Trapetcrof  ovcriv  alpicrei<;  aTrwAetag.  ii.  7. 

12  To  Kpiixa  ovK  apyei,  17  airuKeia  ov  vvara^ei,  ii.  3. 

'3  eu  eiTi0viJ.(a  iXLacrp-ov  Tropeuojue'rovs,  ii.   10. 

!■»  oTrtcrod,  the  only  passage  of  the  N.  T.,  except  Jiide  7,  where  oniato  is  not  used  of  a  ^er- 
sou.     It  has  a  special  meaning,  and  is  unlike  TreptTraTetv  /card  ao-pKO.  in  Rom.  viii.  4. 

15  ^Sof'r)!/  y\ya'6\s.f.vai  Tqu  ev  17/xe'pa  Tpv(f>r\u,  ii.   i j. 

1"  6(l)6a\fj.ou(;  jaetTTOu?  jaoix<'-^'^05>  ii-  14- 

1'^  oLKaTaTTava-Tov^  ajaapria?,  ii.  14.  Some  MSS.  (A.  B.)  have  the  yet  stranger  reading 
aKawoLnduTovi;.  i**  yeyvuvavnevrfv  rrkeovf^iai^,  ii.  14. 

1^  6  ^ot^oj  TQv  (7KOTOU5,  ii.  17.  ^''  Te0r}aavpi.<TpLei>oi.  vvpi,  iii.  7. 

21  eK7re'cn)T6  toO  lSlov  <TTr)piyp.ov,  iii.  17. 

22  pot^T)56f,  iii.  10.  The  strange  English  expression  exactly  corresponds  to  the  Greek. 
The  only  form  like  it  occurs  in  the  LXX.  in^'vnt.  iv.  5. 

23  KavQovtiiva  Tij/cerot. 


122  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

has  here  to  deal.  That  answer  might  be  sufficient  for  three 
or  four  of  them,  but  most  are  of  a  kind  which  do  not  arise 
from  speciality  of  subject.  They  show  a  pecuUarity  of 
structure  rather  than  of  topic.  Some  of  them  are  eccentrici- 
ties of  language  adopted  to  clothe  conceptions  which  would 
have  been  capable  of  a  perfectly  simple  and  commonplace 
expression. 

Independently  of  this  distinctiveness  of  verbiage  there  is 
a  w^ide  difference  between  the  two  Epistles  in  the  general 
form  of  thought.^  This  is  a  fact  too  obvious  to  be  denied. 
Obvious  as  it  is  to  us — for  besides  minor  differences,  there 
is  a  ruggedness  and  tautology  in  the  Greek  of  the  Second 
Epistle  very  diiferent^from  the  smoothness  of  the  First — this 
difference  of  style  must  have  been  far  more  obvious  to  those 
to  whom  Greek  was  a  spoken  language,  and  who  w^ere 
therefore  more  sensitive  than  we  can  be  to  its  delicate  re- 
finements. It  was  pointed  out  by  St.  Jerome,  and  he  assigns 
it  as  one  of  the  causes  which  had  led  to  the  general  rejec- 
tion of  the  Epistle. 

But  it  is  answered,  and  again  with  perfect  truth,  that 
the  style  of  a  writer  differs  under  differing  circumstances. 
The  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  not  the  same  as 
that  to  the  Galatians,  and  both  differ  from  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  The  style  of  St.  John's  Gospel  is  very  unlike  that 
of  the  Apocalypse.  I  grant  this  to  the  utmost.  I  have  even 
insisted  upon  it  and  illustrated  it  in  other  instances.^  But 
differences  of  style  must  not  be  so  wide  as  to  show  a  differ- 
ence of  idiosyncrasy.  They  must  be  accompanied  with  re- 
semblances of  structure  ;  and  they  must  be  partially  ac- 
counted for  by  a  long  interspace  of  years.  The  difference 
between  the  styles  of  the  First  and  the  Second  Epistle  of 
St.  Peter  does  not  admit  of  these  modifying  circumstances  ; 
it  is  deeper  than  can  be  accounted  for  by  a  difference  of 
mood  and  object.  The  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John  were  separated  by  an  interval  of  perhaps  thirty  years 
spent  in  the  most  polished  cities  of  Asia.  The  earlier  and 
later  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  were  divided  from  each  other  by 
many  years  subjected  to  the  intense  influence  of  ever- 
varying  conditions.  But  the  two  Epistles  of  St.  Peter,  if 
both  arc  genuine,  must  have  been  written,  so  far  as  we  can 
learn,  under  identical  external  conditions,  and  written  within 
a  very  short  time  of  each  other. 


•  Th'"5  is  admitted  even  by  Schott. 

2  See  my  Life  and  Work  o/St.  Paul,  li.  6io. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.  PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       1 23 

For  this  reason  I  set  aside  as  irrelevant  the  instances  ad- 
duced by  the  industry  of  critics  to  prove  that  the  same 
writer  may  adopt  different  styles.  It  is  true  that  the  style 
of  Plato's  Epinomis  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  Phsedrus ;  that 
Virgil's  Ciris  is  unworthy  of  the  author  of  the  ^neid  ;  that 
the  De  Oratoribus  of  Tacitus  is  marvellously  unlike  his 
Annals  ;  that  the  Paradise  Lost  is  in  a  loftier  key  than  the 
Paradise  Regained ;  that  the  style  of  Twelfth  Night  is 
widely  separated  from  that  of  Hamlet ;  that  the  Racine  of 
the  Alexandre  is  much  below  the  Racine  of  the  Phedre  and 
Athalie  ;  that  Burke  on  the  Sublime  and  BeautifuMs  incom- 
parably tamer  than  Burke's  Orations  ;  and  that  there  are 
marked  distinctions  between  the  first  and  the  second  part  of 
Goethe's  Faust.  But  these  analogies,  which  might  easily 
be  multiplied,  do  not  touch  the  problem  before  us.  There 
is  not  one  among  them  which  offers  a  parallel  to  the  phe- 
nomenon of  total  difference,  not  only  in  language,  but  in 
thought,  presented  by  two  works  of  the  same  writer  dealing 
in  great  measure  with  the  same  subjects,  and  written  from 
the  same  place,  within  a  very  short  time  of  one  another. 
And  the  differences  between  the  two  Epistles  go  further 
than  this.  Many  are  adduced,  which  I  pass  over  as  unim- 
portant. But  it  is  not  easy  to  explain  why  there  should  be 
such  and  so  many  variations  as  those  which  follow.  Thus 
— (i)  In  the  first  the  writer  calls  himself  Peter,  and  in  the 
second  Symeon  Peter.  (2)  In  the  first  he  writes  "to  the 
elect  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion  ; "  in  the  second  to  those 
who  "  obtained  like  precious  faith  with  us."  (3)  In  the  first 
Christ's  descent  into  Hades  is  a  point  of  capital  importance  ; 
in  the  second,  where  there  would  seem  to  be  every  reason 
for  such  an  allusion,  no  reference  is  made  to  it.  (4)  In  the 
first  the  writer's  mind  is  full  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans 
and  Ephesians,  and  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  ;  in  the  second, 
though  he  makes  a  special  reference  to  St.  Paul,  there  is 
scarcely  a  single  thought,  and  barely  two  expressions,' 
which  can  with  any  plausibility  be  referred  to  those  two 
Epistles,  and  there  is  only  one  word"  which  can  be  derived 
from  St.  James.  (5)  Again,  in  the  first  he  constantly  en- 
w^eaves  without  quotation  the  words  of  Isaiah,  the  Psalms, 
and  especially  the  Book  of  Proverbs  ;'  in  the  second  there 
is  not  a  single  certain  quotation,  and  if  ii.  22,  iii.  8  be  meant 
for   quotations  they  are  introduced   in    a  wholly  different 

'  2  Pet.  i.  2,  etc.,  'ETTiYvutrt?  (Rom.  i.  28,  etc.)  ;  iii.  15,  liOKpoOvfiia  (Rom.  ii.  4). 

a  2  Pet.  ii.  14  ;  aeAed^oi/Tes,  James  i.  14.  3  i  Pet.  i,  7,  ii.  17,  iv.  8,  18. 


124  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

way/  (6)  Of  the  first  the  keynote  \s  Hope  ;  of  the  second, 
though  also  written  in  days  of  persecution,  the  leading  con- 
ception is  the  totally  different  one  of  '"''full  knoivledgey  " 
(7)  In  the  first  our  Lord  is  usually  called  Christ,  or  "  the 
Christ,"  or  ''Jesus  Christ  ;"  in  the  second  the  simple  title 
is  never  used,  but  He  is  always  called  "our  Lord,"  or  "  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  (8)  In  the  first  (a)  the 
coming  of  Christ  is  called  "a  Revelation;"  in  the  second 
the  *'  Presence  "  or  '*  Day  of  the  Lord  ; "  (/3)  in  the  first  this 
Advent  is  expected  as  near  at  hand,  while  in  the  second  we 
are  warned  that  it  may  be  indefinitely  distant ;  (7)  in  the 
first  Christ's  coming  is  regarded  as  the  glorification  of  the 
Saints  ;  in  the  second  as  the  destruction  of  the  world.  (9) 
In  the  first  the  sufferings,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension 
of  the  Lord  are  prominent ;  in  the  second  no  allusion  is 
made  to  them.  (10)  In  the  first  there  is  a  prevailing  tone  of 
sweetness,  mildness,  and  fatherly  dignity ;  the  second  is,  as 
a  whole,  denunciatory  and  severe.  Further  difficulties 
have  been  caused  to  some  minds  (11)  by  the  manner  in 
which  the  writer  of  the  Second  Epistle,  unlike  the  author  of 
the  First,  seems  anxious  to  thrust  into  prominence  his  own 
personality  ;  (12)  by  the  expression,  "the  command  of  your 
Apostles,"  in  iii.  2  ;  (13)  by  the  manner  in  which  the  false 
teachers  seem  to  be  treated  of  sometimes  as  future  {Icrovrai^ 
ii.  I — 3),  sometimes  as  present  (ii.  10,  12,  13,  15,  17,  &c.);^ 
by  the  growth  of  a  feeling  which  they  consider  to  be  later 
than  the  Apostolic  age  in  the  allusion  to  Mount  Hermon  as 
"the  Holy  Mount;"  (15)  by  the  unparalleled  reference  to 
St.  Paul  and  the  apparent  placing  of  his  letters  on  a  level 
with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament ;  *  and  (16)  by  the 
curious  allusion  to  "  the  world  standing  out  of  water  and 
amidst  water." 

(17)  But  we  have  not  even  yet  exhausted  the  list  of 
serious  difficulties.  An  entirely  new  and  very  formidable 
one  has  just  been  brought  to  light  by  Dr.  Abbott.  It  is 
nothing  more  or  less  than  the  certainty  that  either  the  author 
of  the  Second  Epistle  had  read  Josephus — in  which  case, 
of  course,  he  could  not  have  been  St.  Peter,  since  the  earliest 

J  It  has  been  supposed  that  i.  19,  "as  a  lamp  shining  in  a  squalid  place,"  is  borrowed 
from  2  Esdr.  xii.  42.  "  Of  all  the  prophets  thou  only  art  loft  us  ...  as  a  candle  in  a  dark 
place."     Kut  so  obvious  a  comparison  need  not  have  been  borrowed. 

2  This  en-i'yi'wcris  is  made  to  consist  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Power  and  Parousia  of  Christ. 
See  Huther.  p.  306. 

3  The  same  strange  phenomenon  meets  us  in  the  third  chapter  (iii.  3,  kXiVQOvrai ;  iii.  5, 

*  These  differences  might  be  greatly  multiplied.     See  Davidson,  Introd.  i.  492-494. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.   PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       125 

of  Joscphus's  writings  were  not  published  till  a.d.  75,  and 
the  Antiquities  not  earlier  than  a.d.  93  ;  or  (an  alternative 
which  Dr.  Abbott  does  not  discuss)  that  Josephus  had  read 
the  Second  Epistle,  which,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  a  difficult 
supposition.  One  thing  is  indisputable — namely,  that  the 
resemblances  between  the  writer  and  the  Jewish  historian 
canjtot  be  accidental. 

a.  The  proof  rests  partly  on  single  words  and  phrases, 
such  as  ''tardiness  "  applied  to  the  Divine  retribution  (iii,  9); 
*'to  which  ye  do  well  if  ye  take  heed"  (i.  19)  ;  "assuming 
oblivion"  (i.  9);  ''bringing  in  besides  all  diligence"  (i.  5); 
"condemned  w4th  an  overthrow"  (ii.  6);  "  equally  precious;" 
^^ epangelma"  for  "promise"  (i.  4);  ^' sesophismenos"  for 
"cunningly  elaborated"  (i.  16)  ;  and  "from  of  old"  (ii.  3). 
These  are  not  found  elsewhere,  either  in  the  New  Testament 
or  in  the  Septuagint,  or  not  in  the  same  senses  ;  but  they 
occur  in  Josephus,  often  in  very  similar  allusions. 

But  the  proof  becomes  far  more  striking  when  we  con- 
sider g7'oups  of  7vords,  cases  in  which  several  unusual  words 
occur  together  in  similiar  passages. 

Of  these  there  are  two  most  marked  instances  : — 

In  the  Preface  to  the  Antiquities  (§§  3,  4)  Josephus  tells 
us  that  Moses  thought  it  necessary  to  consider  ''''  tlie  Divine 
nature''  (0eo{)  ^vVts),  without  'which  he  would  be  unable  to 
promote  the  "  virtue  "  of  his  readers  ;  that  other  legislators 
^'- folloived after  myths,'"  but  Moses,  having  shown  that  ^^God 
ivas  possessed  of  perfect  virtue,''  thought  that  men  shoidd  strive 
after  virtue;  and  that  his  laws  contain  nothing  derogatory 
to  the  ^^  greatness  "  of  God. 

In  this  single  section,  then,  there  are  several  very  strik- 
ing expressions,  but  they  occur  quite  naturally,  and  betray 
no  deviation  from  the  historian's  usual  style.  It  is,  how- 
ever, surprising  that  we  find  them  occurring  as  absolutely 
isolated  expressions — hapax  legomena  as  far  as  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  concerned — in  this  Epistle.  Thus  we  have  "that 
ye  may  become  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature"  (i.  4),  where 
both  the  phrase  and  its  context  strongly  recall  Josephus  ; 
we  have  the  "greatness  "  {juegaleiotes)  of  Christ  (i.  16),  and 
in  the  very  same  verse  ^^followi?ig  after  cunjiingly  elaborated 
myths."  This  w^ould  alone  be  sufficient  to  attract  notice; 
but  how  much  more  amazing  is  the  w^ord  "  virtue  "  applied 
to  God  !  The  word  "virtue  "  in  this  sense  is  itself  very  rare 
in  the  New  Testament,  which  uplifts  the  higher  standard 
oi  holiness.      But   no  one  can   read  that  God  called  us  "  by 


126  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

His  own  glory  and  virtue  "  (for  such  is  the  true  reading) 
without  something  like  a  start  of  surprise.  We  should  be 
struck  with  the  singularity  of  the  expression  in  any  writer  ; 
but  in  Josephus  it  is  at  once  explained  and  justified  by  the 
context  in  which  it  occurs.  For  Josephus  is  not  making  an 
abstract  allusion,  but  expressly  contrasting  the  Ideal  of  Vir- 
tue in  God's  revelation  of  Himself  to  Moses  with  the  shame- 
ful vices  which  degraded  the  heathen  ideal  of  their  false 
deities.' 

But  this  is  not  the  only  group  of  words. 

yS.  In  the  last  words  of  Moses  (as  recorded  by  Josephus 
in  A?itt.  iv.  8,  §  2)  there  occur  no  less  than  eight  or  nine 
phrases,  some  of  which  either  do  not  occur,  or  scarcely 
ever  occur,  in  the  New  Testament,  and  some  of  which  are 
not  found  even  in  the  Septuagint,  but  every  one  of  which 
occurs  in  this  brief  Epistle,  and  some  of  them  in  similar  col- 
locations." 

To  me  I  confess  that  the  evidential  force  of  this  fact — 
and  Dr.  Abbott  informs  me  that  further  evidence  is  forth- 
coming— seems  to  be  very  strong.^  If,  then,  the  Epistle  be 
genuine,  it  cannot  be  questioned  that  it  was  known  to  Jose- 
phus. Here,  however,  we  are  met  by  the  difficulty  that 
the  same  argument  does  not  apply  to  the  First  Epistle,  so 
that  once  more  Ave  have  a  marked  distinction  between  the 
two. 

(18)  Once  again,  if  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  be 
genuine,  it  was  written  within  a  short  time  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse ;  yet  how  different  is  the  tone  of  the  two  writings  with 
respect  to  the  Coming  of  Christ  !  In  the  Apocalypse  the 
belief  in  its  immediate  imminence  ''blazes  out  in  its  bright- 
est flame,  and  takes  its  most  concrete  form  in  the  idea  of 
the  Millennium  :  "  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  Second  Epistle 
of  St.  Peter,  we  hear  of  scoifers,  who  are  already  beginning 
to  point  out  that  in  their  opinion  the  nearness  of  the  Parou- 
sia  is  a  mere  delusion,  and  to  ask,  ''  Where  is  the  promise 


'  'ApeT>j  only  occurs  in  2  Pet.  i.  3,  5  ;  Phil.  iv.  8.  In  1  Pet.  ii.  9,  the  plural  aperai  is  indeed 
applied  to  CJod,  but  in  a  very  difterent  sense.      It  there  means  "excellencies." 

"^  They  are,  Totao-Se  (i.  17)  ;  Q^ia.^  /coij'wi'oi  c^ucrews  (i.  4)  ;  "  but  I  think  it  just"  (:.  13)  ; 
"so  long  as"  [id.)  ;  "in  the  present  truth  "  (i.  12);  "mention"  or  "memorial"  (i.  15); 
"  departure "  for  "death"  {id.);  "recognising  that"  (i.  20;  iii.  3),  and  others.  Hesides 
these  groups  of  words,  we  liave  phrases  in  2  Pet.  i.  19  and  ii.  to,  which  occur  in  Jos.  .Intt. 
-x\.  6,  §  12,  and  B.  J.  iii.  9,  §  3,  but  not  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  or  LXX. 

3  Since  these  pages  have  been  in  the  press  \)r.  Abbott  has  published  his  very  interesting 
discovery  in  the  /''.xfiositor  for  January,  1882.  Some  parts  of  his  second  paper  are  so  similar 
to  my  own  remarks,  that  I  think  it  right  to  .say  that  these  pages  were  in  print  before  1  had  read 
JL  Jiesides  the  coincidences  of  phrase,  he  points  out  that  ihe  allusions  to  Noah  and  Balaam 
in  2  Pet.  ii.  5,  8,  i>oint  to  tJngadoth  foiuul  in  Jos.  Atitt.  i.  3,  §  1  ;   iv.  6,  §  3. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.   PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       12/ 

of  this  coming?"  Now,  how  does  the  writer  meet  thcir 
objections  ?  Not  by  thundering  forth  with  yet  deeper  con- 
viction Maranatha,  but  by  showing  that,  as  far  as  human 
calculations  of  time  were  concerned,  the  coming  might  be 
still  indefinitely  delayed',  because  with  the  Lord  a  thousand 
years  are  as  one  day.  There  is  not  another  passage  in  the 
whole  New  Testament,  which  implies  that  the  Parousia — 
for  which  the  early  Christians  looked  with  such  intense 
earnestness— so  far  from  being  manifested  in  that  very  gen- 
eration, might  not  take  place  for  even  a  millennium  hence. 
However  we  explain  the  phrase,  '*  Since  the  fathers  fell 
asleep,"  the  point  of  view  seems  to  mark  an  age  later  than 
that  of  the  true  St.  Peter.'  It  seems  to  point  to  an  epoch 
in  which  those  who,  like  the  Montanists,  still  expected  the 
instant  close  of  the  age  (in  another  sense  than  that  in  which 
it  had  already  been  accomplished  by  the  fall  of  Jerusalem) 
were  few  in  number.^ 

The  last  chapter  of  the  Epistle  is  devoted  to  the  correc- 
tion of  two  errors — namely  (i.),  the  acceptance  of  the  scoff 
about  the  delay  in  Christ's  Second  Coming,  and  (ii.)  the 
misuse  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  first  error  is  dealt 
with  at  some  length  (iii.  i — 13)  ;  the  second  is  dismissed  in 
a  few  words  (15  — 16).  It  cannot  be  said  that  either  of  these 
topics  necessarily  indicates  an  age  later  than  that  of  St. 
Peter.  They  would,  however,  have  been  very  suitable  to 
the  second  century,  when  even  the  fall  of  Jerusalem — in 
which  men  failed  to  recognise  a  true  Coming  of  Christ — 
had  not  been  followed  by  the  expected  Advent  in  flaming 
fire  ;  and  when,  as  we  know,  some  Gnostic  sects,  like  that 
of  Marcion,  were  beginning  to  make  a  dangerous  use  of  the 
arguments  of  St.  Paul. 

No  doubt  as  regards  every  one  of  these  difficulties  some- 
fhiufy;  more  or  less  possible,  probable,  or  plausible  may  be 
urged.  It  maybe  said,  for  instance,  that  after  St.  Peter  had 
written  the  First  Epistle  the  letter  of  St.  Jude  was  brought 
to  him,  and  threw  him  into  such  a  state  of  indignant  alarm 
as  to  alter  his  whole  frame  of  mind,  and  to  account  for 
many  of  the  differences  above  mentioned.  The  non-allusion 
to  Christ's  preaching  in  Hades  may  be  referred  to  this  in- 
dignation of  mind,  and  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  St.  Peter, 

'  Even  in  Justin  Martyr's  time  there  was  still  the  expectation  of  an  immediate  Parousia 
[Dinlc.  T7-yph.  80). 

'  See  Uaur,  First  Three  Centuries,  i.  247,  ii.  45  (E.  Tr.).  The  Montanist  view  was  no 
doubt  that  of  the  primitive  Church.  See  Mr.  De  Soyre's  e.vcellent  Essay  on  Montanism,  and 
Bonwelsch,  Die  S'ahe  des  H'elteiuies.  p.  76, 


128  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY 

if  the  Second  Epistle  be  genuine,  shows  the  same  interest 
as  before  in  events  to  whicli  other  Apostles  have  made  little 
or  no  allusion.  The  absence  or  presence  of  certain  marked 
influences,  and  modes  of  quoting  Scripture,  may  be  regarded 
as  having  in  it  nothing  decisive.  '  The  expression  '^your 
Apostles"  may  merely  mean  ''St.  Paul  and  those  who 
preached  to  you."  ''The  Holy  Mount,"  though  not  a 
phrase  which  we  should  have  expected,  may  be  defended 
on  Old  Testament  analogies,^  and  may  hardly  involve  its 
modern  connotations.  The  allusion  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles 
may  not  be  to  all  of  them  which  ive  possess,  but  only  to 
those,  whether  lost  or  extant,  w^hicli  may  have  been  made 
known  to  St.  Peter  by  Silvanus  or  Mark  ;  and  doubtless  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  recognised  in  them  from  the 
earliest  age.  Whether  these  answers  be  regarded  as  suffi- 
cient to  support  the  cause  in  v/hich  they  are  urged,  must 
depend  on  the  feelings  of  the  reader.  They  mitigate  some 
of  the  difficulties  ;  few,  I  tliink,  would  pretend  to  say  that 
they  are  adequate  to  remove  them  all.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  objections  which  might  be  overruled  if  they  stood 
alone,  may  acquire  from  their  number  and  variety  a  cumula- 
tiv^e  force.  Nor  are  all  these  objections  easy  to  meet.  The 
mixture,  for  instance,  of  presents  and  futures  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  False  Teachers,  is  a  difficulty  which  has  been 
met  by  untenable  remarks  about  the  "Prophetic  style." 
That  St.  Judc's  Epistle  was/r/^r  to  that  of  St.  Peter  seems 
to  me  an  irrefragable  conclusion  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  an  unsolved 
— though  I  will  not  say  insoluble — difficulty  that  St.  Peter 
should  have  described  in  prophetic  futures  the  teachers 
whom  St.  Jude  had  already  denounced  as  active  workers. 
There  is  no  known  reason  why  he  should  have  mingled  pre- 
dictions of  their  appearance  with  traits  of  their  existing 
physiognomy.  If  it  be  urged  that  St.  Peter  merely  proph- 
esies the  worse  development  of  contemporary  germs  of 
evil,  the  answer  is  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  imagine 
anything  more  pernicious  than  the  apostates  whom  St.  Jude 
had  scathed  with  his  terrible  invective.^  Before  we  can  ac- 
quiesce in   these  methods  of  defence  let  us   ask  ourselves 

*  Is.  xxvii.  13. 

3  Dean  Alford  and  others  point  out  resemblances  in  this  Epistle  to  the  style  and  phraseology 
of  St.  Peter's  speeches  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  such  as  tlie  word  "piety"  (eva-e^eia)  (Acts 
jii.  12),  '*  the  Day  of  the  Lord"  (iii.  10  ;  Acts  ii.  20),  and  a  few  others.  But  they  seem  to  me 
too  few  and  too  shadowy  for  their  purpose  ;  nor  can  we  observe  in  the  Second  Epistle  (with 
one  marked  exception,  7ii(ie  t'n/rn,  p.  204)  that  influence  of  events  narrated  in  the  Gospels  on 
the  character  and  views  of  St.  Peter,  which  may  be  so  strikingly  traced  in  the  First  Epistle 
{su^ra,  p.  124,  y>.). 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.   PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       1 29 

whether  they  would  have  had  the  least  weight  with  Ud  if  no 
predisposition  to  side  with  the  popular  opinion  were  in- 
volved. Would  they  have  been  held  sufficient  to  prove  the 
genuineness  of  a  classic  treatise,  or  even  of  a  tract  of  any  of 
the  Fathers  ? 

(19)  But  we  have  not  even  now  exhausted  the  peculiari- 
ties of  this  weakly-authenticated  letter.  We  have  still  to 
consider  the  extraordinary  phenomenon  which  it  presents 
in  its  relationship  to  the  short  Epistle  of  Jude.  On  the 
facts  of  this  relationship  each  successive  writer  comes  to  a 
different  conclusion  ;  but,  after  careful  consideration  and 
comparison  of  the  two  documents,  it  seems  to  my  own  mind 
impossible  to  doubt  that  Jude  was  the  earlier  of  the  two 
writers.^  If  so,  the  fact  that  such  an  Apostle  as  St.  Peter 
should,  without  even  referring  to  him  by  name,  have  incor- 
porated successively  so  many  of  the  thoughts  and  expres- 
sions of  one  who,  like  St.  Jude,  was  not  an  Apostle,  is  yet 
another  extraordinary  circumstance.'^  To  talk  of  ''  plagia- 
rism "  would  be  to  import  modern  notions  into  the  enquiry; 
and  if  St.  Peter  were  the  borrower,  we  shall  see  that  he  deals 
with  his  materials  in  a  wise  and  independent  manner.  But 
as  to  any  further  questions  which  may  arise  from  the  rela- 
tionship of  the  two  writers,  we- must  be  content  to  say  that 
we  have  no  data  on  which  to  furnish  an  answer. 

The  closeness  of  the  relationship  will  be  seen  at  a  glance 
by  comparing  the  parallel  passages  side  by  side.  The  char- 
acteristics of  the  "impious  persons"  of  Jude  and  that  of 
the  "  false  teachers  "  of  St.  Peter^  are  identical.  Both  are 
marked  by  those  insidious  and  subterranean  methods  which 
seem  to  be  inseparable  from  the  character  of  religious  par- 
tisans (Jud.  4;  2  Pet.  ii.  I — 3);  by  impious  wantonness  {id., 
and  Jud.  8  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  10)  ;  by  denial  of  Christ  {id.)  ;  by  slan- 
der of  dignities  (Jud.  8  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  10)  ;  by  corruption  of 
natural  instincts  (Jud.  10  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  12)  ;  by  greed  (Jud.  11, 
2  Pet.  ii.  14,  15)  ;  by  pompous  assertions  and  scoffing  mock- 
ery (Jud.  16—18  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  18,  iii.  3).  Both  are  doomed  to 
swift  judgment ;  are  described  by  very  similar  metaphors  ; 
are  threatened  with  the  same  punishments  ;  are  compared 
to  Balaam  ;  and  are  warned  by  the  example  of  the  Cities  of 

^  The  notion  of  Luther,  Wolf,  etc.,  that  2  Peter  was  the  earlier,  though  still  supported  by 
Thiersch,  Dietlein,  Fronmiiller,  Hofmann,  Wordsworth,  etc.,  is  being  more  and  more  aban- 
doned. The  priority  of  St.  Jude  is  accepted  by  Herder.  Hug,  Eichhorn,  Credner,  Neander, 
De  Wette,  Mayerhoff,  Guerike,  Rcuss,  Bleek,  Weiss,  Wiesinger,  Bruckner,  Huther,  Ewald, 
Alford,  Plumptre,  Dr.  S.  Davidson,  etc. 

■■^  Bertholdt  and  Lange  suppose  that  this  chapter  was  subsequently  interpolated  into  the 
Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter. 


I30  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY, 

the  Plain.  But  if  the  two  passages  are  read  side  by  side, 
it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  the  language  of  St.  Jude  is  the 
more  eloquent  and  impetuous,  while  that  of  St.  Peter  is  the 
more  elaborate  and  restrained.  The  burning  lava  of  St. 
Jude's  indignation  has  evidently  poured  itself  through  the 
secondary  channels  of  a  temperament  which  would  probably 
have  been  more  congenial  to  its  reception  at  an  earlier 
period.  St.  Peter,  if  it  be  he,  catches  something  of  the 
Judaic  fire  and  heat  of  his  contemporary,  but  he  modifies, 
softens,  and  corrects  his  vehement  phrases.  His  language 
is  but  an  echo  of  the  thunder.  He  throws  the  description,  in 
part  at  least,  into  the  future,  as  though  to  indicate  that  those 
against  whom  he  warns  his  readers  have  not  yet  burst  into 
the  full  blossom  of  their  iniquity. 

Travelling  through  Christian  communities  as  one  of 
*Hhe  brethren  of  the  Lord,"  '  St.  Jude  seems  to  have  come 
into  personal  contact  with  bodies  of  corrupt,  greedy,  and 
subtle  Antinomians  closely  resembling  those  "  Gnostics  be- 
fore Gnosticism"  whose  appearance  had  been  noted  by  the 
prescient  eye  of  St.  Paul.  Having  actually  witnessed  their 
baleful  influence,  he  can  depict  them  w4th  startling  power 
and  clearness,  and  he  rolls  over  them  peal  after  peal  of  Apo- 
calyptic denunciation.  St.  Peter,  now  perhaps  awaiting  his 
death  at  Rome,  has  not  personally  seen  them — not,  at  any 
rate,  in  their  worst  and  most  undisguised  developments. 
Startled  by  the  language  of  St.  Jude — such  is  a  perhaps  ad- 
missible hypothesis  —  finding  that  the  very  words  and 
thoughts  and  sentences  of  that  brief  but  strange  and  power- 
ful letter  keep  ringing  with  ominous  sound  in  his  memory 
— in  his  heart  too  the  fire  burns  and  he  speaks  with  his 
tongue.  The  mystery  of  iniquity,  he  implies,  is  already 
working,  but  he  cannot  bring  himself  to  believe  that  it  has 
invaded  all  the  Churches  to  which  he  writes,  and  therefore 
he  predicts  even  while  he  is  describing,  and  describes  while 
he  predicts.  The  language  of  his  second  chapter  seems  to 
show  that  the  author  was  writing  from  vivid  and  even  ver- 
bal memory  of  St.  Jude's  letter,  but  not  with  its  words, 
lying  actually  before  him.  In  some  cases  he  presents  the 
curious  but  familiar  phenomenon  of  the  memory  being 
magnetized  rather  by  the  sounds  of  the  words  than  by  the 
words  themselves.''     Thus  from  external  similarity  St.  Jude's 


1  I  Cor.  ix.  s. 

*  Weiss  says  that  "  St.  Peter"  has  been  influenced  by  the  "  ivortklang" 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.  PETER  S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       131 

''sunken  reefs"  {spilades)  become  ''spots"  {spiloi.y  and  St. 
Jiide's  "  ]ove  feasts "  (^^^^/^z/)  become  "deceits"  {apatai). 
But,  besides  this,  it  is  evident  that  both  in  greater  and 
smaller  matters  a  spirit  of  conscious  modification  is  at  work, 
both  in  the  way  of  addition  and  omission.  Where  St.  Jude 
speaks  of  "r/6'//^A'wijthout  water"  St.  Peter,  to  avoid  any  scien- 
tific cavil — since  a  cloud  without  water  is  a  thing  not  conceiv- 
able— speaks  of  "■  iveils  without  water."  Where  St.  Jude  re- 
fers to  the  profanation  of  the  Agapse  St.  Peter's  allusion  is 
more  distant  and  general.  St.  Jude  in  three  successive 
clauses  speaks  of  the  fall  of  the  angels  through  fleshly  lusts  ; 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  as  "  undergoing  a  judgment  of 
aeonian  fire  ; "  of  a  peculiar  form  of  ceremonial  pollution 
familiar  to  all  who  were  trained  in  the  Levitic  law  ;  of  the 
dispute  between  Michael  the  Archangel  and  the  Devil  about 
the  body  of  Moses  ;  and  of  the  corruption  of  natural  and 
instinctive  knowledge.  He  then  proceeds  to  compare  these 
evil-doers  to  Cain,  to  Balaam,  and  to  Korah,  and  after  an 
impassioned  outburst  of  metaphors  applies  to  them  a 
prophecy  from  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch.  It  is  in- 
structive to  see  how  the  writer  of  this  later  Epistle  deals 
with  the  burning  material  thus  before  him.  To  the  fall  of 
the  angels  he  only  alludes  in  the  most  general  manner,  ex- 
cluding all  reference  to  the  Rabbinic  tradition,  which  sprung 
out  of  inferences  from  Gen.  vi.  2.  Omitting  St.  Judo's 
allusion  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  he  substitutes  a 
reference  to  the  Deluge.  Omitting,  perhaps  as  liable  to 
be  misunderstood,  the  seonian  fire  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha, 
he  only  says  that  these  cities  were  reduced  to  ashes,  while 
he  is  careful  to  add,  by  way  of  encouragement  to  the  faith- 
ful, that  Lot  was  saved.  He  omits  as  painful,  and  to  Hel- 
lenic readers  hardly  intelligible,  both  of  St.  Jude's  allusions 
to  certain  forms  of  Levitic  "pollutions."  He  omits,  as  being 
derived  from  the  apocryphal  Ascension  of  Moses,  all  allusion 
to  the  legend  about  the  dispute  of  Michael  and  Satan,  and 
even  the  name  of  the  Archangel,  and,  in  a  passage  which, 
apart  from  the  parallel  in  St.  Jude,  would  be  extremely  ob- 
scure, he  gives  to  the  reference  a  general  turn,  wiiich,  if  it 
conveyed  to  the  readers  any  distinct  conception,  would  re- 
mind them  rather  of  the  accuser  of  the  Brethren  in  the  Book 
of  Zechariah.      St.  Jude,   speaking   throughout   rather  of 

>  I  am  aware  that  some  take  aJriAciSes  to  mean  the  same  as  o-TrtAot,  and  it  is  so  understood 
in  the  ancient  versions.  See  Bishop  Lightfoot  on  Revision,  p.  137.  Dr.  Abbott  points  out 
LE.iifOsitor,  Feb.  1882,  p.  145)  that  a  group  of  words  in  this  paragraph  is  also  found  in  Is.  Ivi. 
7— Ivii.  5,  ^  Lev,  XV.  16,  17  ;  Jude  8,  23. 


132  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

vicious  livers  than  of  false  teachers,  describes  them  with 
great  clearness  as  blaspheming  in  subjects  about  which  they 
know  nothing,  and  corrupting  the  knowledge  which  comes 
to  them  instinctively,  as  it  does  to  animals  without  reason. 
The  later  writer  remembers  thew^ords  ''as  the  animals  with- 
out reason,"  but  by  an  ingenious  figure  of  speech,  in  which 
the  same  word  serves  a  double  purpose,^  applies  it  to  com- 
pare the  Jiopeless  end  of  the  false  teachers  to  that  of  animals. 
Omitting  the  instances  of  Cain  and  of  Korah,  but  amplify- 
ing tliat  of  Balaam,  which  was  more  germane  to  his  pur- 
pose, he  tones  down  the  exuberance  of  St.  Jude's  rhetoric. 
Perhaps  because  he  is  only  writing  from  impressions  with- 
out the  original  manuscript  before  him,  while  substituting 
"wells  without  water,"  for  ''clouds  without  water,"  he 
adds  the  clause  "clouds  chased  by  the  hurricane."  He 
omits  St.  Jude's  "  wandering  stars,  "  and  yet  applies 
directly  to  the  teachers  the  powerful  metaphor  "for 
whom  the  gloom  of  darkness  has  been  reserved  for 
ever."  Again,  he  omits  the  prophecy  of  Enoch,  prob- 
ably because  it  is  taken  from  an  apocryplial  book  ;  and 
lastly,  he  mentions — as  a  specific  instance  of  the  scoffs  to 
which  St.  Jude  only  alludes — the  mocking  questions  which 
were  suggested  by  the  delay  of  Christ's  return.  I  must 
confess  my  inability  to  see  how  any  one  who  approaches  the 
inquiry  with  no  ready-made  theories  can  fail  to  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  priority  in  this  instance  belongs  to  St. 
Jude.  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  such  a  burning 
and  Avithering  blast  of  defiance  and  invective  as  his  brief 
letter  to  have  been  composed  on  principles  of  modification 
and  addition.^  All  the  marks  which  indicate  the  refiective 
treatment  of  an  existing  document  are  to  be  seen  in  the 
Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  In  every  instance  of  variation 
we  see  the  reasons  which  influenced  the  later  writer.  The 
instances  of  Cain  and  Korah  did  not  suit  his  purpose,  which 
dealt  rather  with  secret  corruption  than  flagrant  violence, 
and  with  errors  of  theory  than  with  undisguised  revolt.  But, 

J  This  figure  of  speech  is  called  antanaclisis,  and  consists  in  the  use  of  the  same  word 
twice  in  different  senses  in  the  same  passage,  (see  suj>ra,  p.  165,  the  note  on  i  Pet.  iii.  i). 
Here  <f>9opa  is  first  "destruction,"  and  then  "corruption."  Compare  2  Pet.  ii.  12,  "But  these, 
as  reasonless  animals,  creatures  of  nature  ((/)v<Tt*ca),  bom  for  capture  and  destruction  {({>6opav), 
blaspheming  in  things  of  which  they  are  ignorant  (ayvoovaiv) ,  shall  be  destroyed  in  their  own 
corruption  {Iv  TJj  avrwi'  4>Gopa  KaTa(|)9ap^<roi/Tai),"  with  Jude  10,  "These,  in  all  things  which 
they  know  not  {ovk  olSaaiv),  blaspheme  ;  l)ut  all  the  things  which,  like  the  reasonless  animals, 
they  know  naturally  (^ucrtKoJ?),  in  these  they  corrupt  themselves  {(fyOeipovTai) ." 

'^  The  genius  and  fine  literary  instinct  of  Herder  saw  this  at  once :  "  Siehe  welch  ein  gauzer 
kriiftiger,  wie  ein  Feuerrad  in  sich  selbst  zuriicklaufender  Brief:  man  nehme  das  Schreiben 
Pclrus  dazu,  wie  cs  cinlciiet,  niildert,  auslasst,  etc."     So,  too,  Weiss,  Huther,  etc. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.  PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       I  33 

had  St.  Peter  written  first,  tlicre  is  no  reason  why  St.  Jude 
should  have  omitted  so  striking  and  apposite  an  example 
as  was  furnished  by  the  Deluge.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
St.  Jude  should  simply  have  taken  a  paragraph  of  a  longer 
Epistle,  have  added  apocryphal  illustrations  to  it,  and 
flashed  lightning  into  it  by  a  process  of  reflective  treatment. 
All  literary  probability  decisively  shows  that  the  more 
guarded,  more  dignified,  more  exclusively  authoritative 
composition — the  one  less  liable  to  excite  offense  and  cavil 
— w^ould  be  the  later  of  the  two.  There  is  nothing  absurd 
in  the  supposition  that  a  later  writer,  powerfully  moved  by 
the  state  of  things  revealed  in  the  letter  of  St.  Jude,  should, 
in  a  longer  and  in  some  respects  weightier  epistle,  have 
utilised,  w^ile  yet  he  modified,  that  powerful  utterance, 
abandoning  its  triplicity  of  structure,'  and  omitting  those 
Hebraic  references  which  would  have  been  a  stumbling- 
block  to  a  wider  circle  of  readers.  The  notion  that  St.  Jude 
endeavoured  to  ''improve  upon"  St.  Peter  is,  I  say,  a  liter- 
ary impossibility  ;  and  if  in  some  instances  the  phrases  of 
St.  Jude  seem  more  antithetical  and  striking,  and  his  de- 
scription clearer,  I  have  sufficiently  accounted  for  the  in- 
feriority—if it  be  inferiority — of  St.  Peter  by  the  supposition 
that  he  was  a  man  of  more  restrained  temperament ;  that  he 
wrote  under  the  influence  of  reminiscences  and  impressions; 
and  that  he  was  warning  against  forms  of  evil  with  which  he 
had  not  come  into  so  personal  a  contact. 

Having  now  examined— fairly,  I  trust,  and  as  fully  as 
my  limits  will  allow — the  peculiarities  of  the  Epistle  before 
us,  and  the  serious  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way  of  our 
regarding  it  as  the  work  of  St.  Peter,  I  Avill  state  one  or  two 
of  the  reasons  why,  in  spite  of  these  difficulties,  I  cannot  re- 
gard it  as  certainly  spurious.     They  are  mainly  three  ; — ■ 

I.  First,  we  must  not  wholly  ignore  the  similarity  in  ex- 
pression and  tone  of  thought  between  this  Epistle  and  the 
First,*  nor  the  slight  resemblances  which  it  offers  to  St. 
Peter's  speeches  recorded  in  the  Acts."     The  resemblance  of 

1  See  infra,  p.  236.  •  u  »   /  • 

2  Words  common  to  both  Epistles  are  "precious"  (Tc>tos1,  "  abundantly  furnish  (eiri- 
XopT7Y«'^^i  "  brotherly  love  "  ((|)cAa5eA(|)t'a),  "eye-witnesses"  (en-OTrTai),  "wantonness  {a.aiK- 
yetai,  "  spotless"  (atrn-iAos).  In  both  there  is  a  prominence  of  the  Deluge  and  of  Prophecy. 
See  Plumptre,  Iiitrod  ,  p.  75.  I  have  pointed  out  that  in  both  occurs  a  specimen  of  the  figure 
called  antanaclisis  (•'  word"  m  i  Pet.  iii.  i,  "corruption"  in  2  Pet.  u.  12).  This  has,  1  be- 
lieve, escaped  the  notice  of  previous  inquirers.     See  i'w/rrti,  pp.  165,  201.  • 

3  This  is  fully  worked  out  by  Prof.  Lumby  in  the  Exf-ositor.  iv.  372-399  »""  44&-469. 
But  in  anv  case  the  writer  of  the  Second  Epistle  would  be  very  familiar  with  the  iangiiace  ot 
the  First.'  DiJ/ereficcs,  in  a  question  of  this  kind,  furnish  a  far  more  serious  consideration 
than  identities  and  resemblances. 


134  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  writer  to  St.  Peter  in  tone  of  mind  ' — as,  for  instance, 
in  his  largeheartedness  to  the  Gentiles,"  in  his  fondness  for 
the  less  trodden  paths  of  Biblical  illustration  and  enquiry, 
and  in  his  tendency  to  soften  instances  of  doom  by  the  paral- 
lel of  instances  of  deliverance — must  also  be  allowed  their  due 
weight.  Under  this  head  I  may  refer  to  the  subtle  remiiiiS' 
cences  of  the  Transfigu  ration.  Of  the  appeal  to  the  Transfigu  ra- 
tion as  a  source  of  the  writer's  conviction,  it  may  of  course 
be  said  that  it  would  naturally  occur  to  any  one  assuming 
the  name  of  St.  Peter  ;  but  the  casual  subsequent  introduc- 
tion of  the  word  ''tabernacle,"^  and  of  the  most  unusual 
word  for ''decease,"  *  not  in  any  formal  connexion  w^ith  the 
appeal,  but  by  an  inimitably  natural  association  of  ideas,  has 
always  seemed  to  me  an  important  item  of  evidence.  To 
this  must  be  added  the  little-noticed  indication  that  the 
Transfiguration  probably  took  place  at  night,  though  it  is 
not  so  stated  in  the  Gospels.  This  w^ould  at  onc'e  account  for 
the  following  comparison  of  the  word  of  prophecy  to  "a 
light  shining  in  a  squalid  place." 

2.  Another  important  consideration  is  the  ancie7itness  of 
this  Epistle.  If  we  cannot  infer  this  from  the  vague  resem- 
blances to  it  adduced  from  passages  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
Ave  may  infer  it  from  three  circumstances — namely;  the  want 
of  all  speciiic  features  of  later  Gnosticism  in  the  heretics 
here  described  ;  the  absence  of  allusions  to  ecclesiastical 
organisation  ;  and  the  absence  of  any  traces  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem.  As  to  the  first  point,  is  it  not  certain  that  a  later 
writer  w^ould  have  aimed  his  remonstrances  at  something 
more  distinctly  and  definitely  resembling  the  heresies  of 
Cerinthusor  Ebion,  or  later  still,  of  Carpocrates  and  Valen- 
tinus  ?  As  to  the  second  point,  it  is  probably  better  known 
to  us  than  it  was  even  to  many  writers  in  the  second  century, 
that  there  had  been  a  rapid  tendency  to  desynonymise  the 
words  "bishop"  and  "presbyter,"  and  that  the  consequent 
development  of  "episcopal"  power  was  due  to  the  growth 
of  heresy,  against  which  it  was  designed  to  be  a  bulwark,^ 
If,  then,  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  was  a  falsarius^  writing 
late  in  the  second  centur)^,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  he 
would  not  have  adopted  the  same  tone  in  reference  to  this 

'  Compare  2  Pet.  i.  17,  21  ;  ii.  i,  13 ;  with  Acts  iii.  12  ;  ii.  2  ;  iv.  24  ;  ii.  15. 

-  2  I*ot.  i.  I.  s  aKr\vui\x.<k.     Watt.  x\ii.  4: 

4  efoSo?,  "departure,"  i.e.,  death,  as  in  Jos.  Antt.  iv.  812.     Wisd.  iii.  2. 

'In  the  First  Epistle  the  word  i'piskof>os  only  occurs  once,  and  that  in  its ^ifwrrrt/ sense  of 
"  guardian  "'  (i  Pet.  ii.  -^5),  and  each  Church  has  only  its  "  presbyters,"  with  whom  the  Apos- 
tle ranks  himself  (i  Pet.  v.  i). 


PECULIARITIES  OF  ST.   PETER'S  SECOND  EPISTLE.       1 35 

subject  as  the  other  writers  of  his  age.  As  regards  tlie  fall 
of  Jerusalem,  it  may,  of  course,  be  said  that  any  reference 
to  it  would  have  betrayed  the  pseudonymous  character  of 
the  writer  ;  but  I  am  now  only  arguing  that  there  are  no 
traces  of  the  state  of  mind  produced  by  tlie  Jewish  catastro- 
phe. Is  it  not  probable  that  a  falsarius  of  the  ability  pre- 
supposed by  this  Epistle  would  have  seized  the  grand  op- 
portunity of  \\\XxoAMQ\xi^  as  a  prediction  ^Vi  illustration  which 
w^ouldhave  been  in  all  respects  so  overwhelmingly  apposite  ? 
But  in  any  case  the  end  of  the  Jewish  polity  was  an  event 
so  stupendous  that  no  writer  dealing  with  such  subjects  as 
those  before  us  could  have  succeeded  in  excluding  every 
trace  of  an  occurrence  which  so  radically  modified  the  tone 
of  Christian  thought. 

3.  One  more  consideration  remains,  which  seems  to  me 
of  capital  importance.  It  is  the  superiority  of  this  Epistle 
to  every  one  of  the  uncanonical  writings  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries.  If  wx  are  to  accept  the  theories  of 
modern  critics,  that  the  Epistles  of  the  Captivity,  and  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  and  the 
Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  are  the  works  of  "  forgers," 
then — seeing  the  indescribable  superiority  of  these  w^ritings 
to  all  others  which  saw  the  light  during  the  epoch  at  which 
they  are  supposed  to  have  been  written — we  are  driven  to 
the  extraordinary  conclusion  that  the  best  strength  and 
brilliancy  and  spiritual  insight  of  the  second  century  is  to 
be  found  in  its  pseudonymous  writings  !  Who  will  venture 
to  assert  that  any  Apostolic  Father — that  Clement  of  Rome, 
or  Ignatius,  or  Polycarp,  or  Hermas,  or  Justin  Martyr 
could  have  written  so  much  as  twenty  consecutive  verses  so 
eloquent  and  so  powerful  as  those  of  the  Second  Epistle  of 
St.  Peter  ?  No  known  member  of  the  Church  in  that  age 
could  have  been  the  writer  ;  not  even  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  Diognetus.  Would  a  writer  so  much  more  power- 
ful than  any  of  these  have  remained  luiinfiucntiai  and  un- 
known ?  Would  one  who  c(Mild  wield  his  pen  with  so  in- 
spired a  power  have  failed  to  write  a  line  in  his  own  name, 
and  for  the  immediate  benefit  of  his  own  contemporaries? 

In  the  face,  then,  of  these  counter-difficulties,  I  see  no 
solution  of  the  problem  but  the  one  which  St.  Jerome  in- 
dicated fourteen  centuries  ago.^  I  believe  that  we  may  per- 
haps recognise   in   this  Epistle  the  opinions,  the  influence, 

1  "  Stilo  inter  se  et  charactere  discrepant  structuraque  verhoriim.     Kx  quo  intelligimiis  pro 
necessitate  lerum  diversis  eum  usiim  interpretibus."— A^.  nd  Hedib.  120,  11. 


136  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

the  impress,  direct  or  indirect,  of  the  great  Apostle  of  the 
Circumcision.  If  we  cannot  find  his  individual  style,  if  we 
are  faced  by  many  peculiarities,  if  we  miss  characteristic  ex- 
pressions, if  we  recognise  a  different  mode  of  workmanship, 
some  of  these  difficulties  would  be  removed  by  the  sup- 
position of  a  literary  amanuensis.  The  supposition  of  an 
Aramaic  original,  as  supported  by  Mr.  King,  seems  to 
me  untenable.'  Thi^  Epistle  is  addressed  quite  as  much 
to  Gentiles  as  to  Jews  ;  and  even  if  the  Jews  of  the  Dis- 
persion understood  Aramaic,  the  Gentiles  did  not.  This 
suggestion,  moreover,  does  not  remove  the  most  serious 
difficulties.  The  Epistle,  though  it  does  not  show  the 
mastery  of  Hellenistic  Greek  possessed  by  some  of  the  New 
Testament  writers,  has  yet  an  energy  of  its  own  which  ex- 
cludes the  possibility  of  its  being  a  translation.^  I  believe 
there  is  much  to  support  the  conclusion — at  which  I  had 
arrived  before  I  became  aware  of  the  resemblances  to 
Josephus — that  we  have  not  here  the  words  and  style  of  the 
great  Apostle,  but  that  he  lent  to  this  Epistle  tlie  sanction 
of  his  name  and  the  assistance  of  his  advice.  If  this  be  so, 
it  is  still  in  its  main  essence  genuine  as  well  as  canonical, 
and  there  is  a  reason  both  for  its  peculiarities  and  for  its 
tardy  reception.  On  this  hypothesis  we  may  rejoice  that 
we  have  preserved  to  us  both  the  encouragements  addressed 
to  the  Church  by  St.  Peter,  and  his  warnings  against  anti- 
Christian  heresies.  Tliese  heresies,  as  we  see  from  the 
Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  had  also  occupied  a  large  space 
in  the  last  thoughts  of  St.  Paul.  St.  Peter  speaks  of  them 
mainly  in  the  future,  as  St.  Paul  had  done  in  hisfarewell  to  the 
Ephesian  elders  at  Miletus.  It  is  said  that  w4ien  Charlemagne 
first  saw  the  ships  of  the  pirate  Norsemen  he  burst  into  tears, 
not  because  he  feared  that  they  would  give  him  any  trouble, 
but  because  he  foresaw  the  miseries  which  they  would  inflict 
upon  his  subjects  in  the  future.  So  it  was  with  the  Apostles. 
Tiie  errors  of  which  others  only  saw  the  germ,  loomed  large 
on  the  horizon  of  their  prophetic  insight,  although  it  was  not 
until  after  their  death  that  they  assumed  their  full  propor- 
tions as  the  perilous  heresies  of  Gnostic  speculation. 


1  A  translation  would  not  have  such  a  figure  as  that  involved  in  the  use  of  <ji9of>a  (first 
"destruction,"  then  "corruption")  in  ii.  12,  or  such  an  alliteration  as  irpo(t>TJTOv  irapa<ppoviap 
in  ii.  16. 

2  '•  iHese  ist  fast  ohne  alle  Ausnahme  schr  fein  Oriechisch,  vol!  der  freiesten  acht  Griech- 
ischen  Wortstellungen  und  Satzbildungen,"  etc. — Ewald,  Sendschr.  ii.  no.  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  best  described  as  the  poetic  Qreek  of  one  who  had  p.irtly  learned  the  language  from 
the  trigediins.  The  repetitions  of  words  are  due  to  the  same  sparse  but  sonorous  vocabulary 
of  the  amcnuensis. 


THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    PETER.  1 37 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    PETER. 
'Ev  ots  ecTTt  Sv<Tu6r)Ta.  Tiva. — 2  Peter  iii,  16. 

Instead  of  following  the  plan  which  I  have  hitherto  adopt- 
ed, of  endeavouring  to  take  the  reader  through  each  Epistle 
by  explaining  and  epitomising  its  general  purpose  in  lan- 
guage which  may  counteract  the  deadening  effect  of  over- 
familiarity,  I  have  thought  it  best  to  re-translate  the  whole 
of  this  Epistle.  I  have  done  so  for  several  reasons.  In 
previous  instances  I  have  given  a  literal  version  of  every 
passage  which  was  obscure,  or  specially  remarkable,  or  in 
which  the  English  Version  seemed  incorrect,  or  difficult  of 
apprehension,  or  dependent  on  inferior  readings.  This 
Epistle  has  given  rise  to  so  many  controversies,  it  is  so  re- 
markably compact  in  its  structure,  its  expressions  are  so 
unusual,  and  sometimes  even  so  astonishing,  that  I  have 
thought  it  best  to  re-translate  the  whole  of  it  as  closely  as  I 
could,  appending  in  the  briefest  form  such  notes  as  seemed 
most  necessary.  I  know  that  the  reader  may  feel  inclined 
to  leave  the  translation  unread,  under  the  notion  that  he  is 
already  familiar  with  a  version  not  only  infinitely  more  dear 
to  him,  but  also  more  euphonious,  more  .smooth,  more  liter- 
ary, and  (as  it  will  perhaps  seem  to  him)  more  easy  to  un- 
derstand. I  would,  however,  ask  him  to  fftllow  me  in  this 
version,  because  our  English  Bible,  with  all  its  splendid 
merits,  constantly  misses  the  peculiarities  of  the  writer's 
diction  through  its  besetting  fondness  for  needless  varia- 
tions. My  translation,  made,  I  ought  to  say,  before  the  Re- 
vised Version  appeared,  and  with  a  different  object,  is  meant 
throughout  to  be  not  only  a  literal  version,  but  also  a  run- 
ning commentary.' 

SYME0N2  Peter,  a  slave  and  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  those  who  have  ob- 
tained 3  a  like  precious  faith  with  us,  in  the  righteousness  of  our  God  and  of  our 


'  I  may  perhaps  be  allowed  to  remark  that,  though  this  book,  no  less  than  my  Lil/e  of 
Christ  and  Life  of  St.  Paul,  has  been  written  without  the  aid  which  I  should  have  derived 
from  the  Revised  Version,  I  find  that  there  is  scarcely  a  single  instance  in  which  the  correc- 
tions I  had  ventured  to  make,  and  the  readings  which  I  had  selected,  were  not  in  accordance 
with  those  of  the  Revisers.  The  fact  that  the  renderinois  which  I  have  given  are  often  those 
which  the  Revisers  place  in  the  margin,  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  exact  reproduction  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  original,  at  which  I  have  always  aimed. 

2  The  adoption  of  this  form  at  once  marks  a  Hebraist. 

3  Ko-yfivai,  Acts  i.  17  (St.  Peter). 


138 


THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


Saviour  Jesus  Christ,»  grace  to  you  and  peace  be  multiplied  in  the  full  knowl- 
edge- of  God  and  of  Jesus  our  Lord.  Seeing  that  His  Divine  power  hath  given 
us  al!  things  that  pertain  to  life  and  piet\^3  by  means  of  the  full  knowledge  of 
Him  Who  called  us  by  His  own  glory  and  virtue  ;  ^  by  means  of  which  He'hath 
given  us  His  greatest  and  precious  promises,^  that  by  their  means  ye  may  be- 
come partakers  of  Divine  nature,  having  escaped  from  the  corruption  which  is 
in  the  world  in  lust.  And  on  this  very  account,  adding  all  earnestness/  abun- 
dantly furnish  ^  in  your  faith  virtue,  and  in  your  virtue  knowledge,' and  in  your 
knowledge  self-control,  and  in  your  self-control  endurance,  and  in  your  endur- 
ance piety,  and  in  your  piety  brotherly  affection,  and  in  your  brotherly  affection 
love. 8  For  these  things,  when  they  exist  and  abound,  render  you  neither  idle 
nor  unfruitful  unto  the  full  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'*  For  he  in 
whom  they  are  not  is  blind,  wilfully  closing  his  eyes.^o  assuming  oblivion  "  of  his 
purification  from  his  olden  sins.'^  Wherefore  the  rather,  brethren,  give  diligence 
to  make  sure  your  calling  and  election,  for  by  so  doing  ye  shall  never  stumble. is 
P'or  there  shall  be  richly  furnished  to  you  the  entrance  into  the  eternal  kingdom 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  (i.  i — ii).i-i 

Wherefore  I  will  not  neglect  to  remind  you  always  about  these  things,  though 
ye  know  them,  and  have  been  firmly  fixed  in  the  present  truth.  ^^  But  I  con- 
sider it  right,  as  long  as  I  am  in  this  tabernacle,  to  arouse  you  by  way  of  re- 
minder, knowing  that  swiftly  shall  come  the  laying  aside  of  this  my  tabernacle, i« 
as  even  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  showed  me.i^  But  I  will  be  diligent,  that  you 
may  be  able  '^  even  on  every  occasion  after  my  departure,  to  make  mention  of 
these  things. i»  For  it  was  not  by  following  in  the  track  of  elaborated  myths  20 
that  we  made  known  to  you  the  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
but  by  having  been  initiated, '■2'  as  eye-witnesses,  into  His  Majestj^  For  having 
received  honour  and  glory  from  God  the  Father  when  a  voice  such  as  this  was 
borne  to  him 22  from  the  magnificent  glory, 23  "  My  Son,  my  Beloved  is  this, 21  in 

1  "  Of  our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ"  would  also  be  grammatical,  but  see  on  Tit.  ii. 
13,  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul.,  ii.  533  ;  and  the  next  verse  seems  to  show  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  here  meant. 

2 'Eiriyj'<D<rc9,  "  full  knowledge,"  is  the  leading  word  of  this  Epistle  (as  "hope"  isof  i  Pet.). 

3  E»<re(3eia.  The  word  only  occurs  elsewhere  in  Acts  iii.  12  and  the  pastoral  Epistles. 
6eto«,  "  divine,"  is  peculiar  to  this  Epistle.     (Cf.  Acts  xvii.  29.) 

■1  'Aperrj.  here  alone  of  God.  hi  i  Pet.  ii.  9  the  word  is  aperds.  which  is  quite  different.  Leg., 
ISia  0.  Kol  ap,,  ^,  A,  C.  The  writer  is  fond  of  using  the  emphatic  t6ios  (2  Pet.  ii.  22  ;  iii.  3.  16, 
17  ;   I  Pet.  iii.  15J.  ^  ^5  jn  o  Pet.  iii.  13.  ^  ei(r4iipei.v  (nrovirji'.     Jos.  Autt .  xx.  9.,  §  2. 

^  €7rt,xop'»77j(TaTe.     The  E.  V.     "  .'Vdd  to  your  failh  virtue,  eta"  is  quite  untenable. 

*  For  diese  virtues  se#  the  first  Episde,  where  every  one  of  them  is  mentioned,  even  the 
less  common  words  dperij  (i  Pet.  ii.  9,  J>lur.),  ^iXahtk<i>La  (i  Pet.  i.  22),  and  yvwais  (1  Pet. 
iii.  7).  ®  Comp.  Col.  i.  10. 

J"  ILvuTra^div,  one  of  the  numerous  haj>ax  legoviena  of  tliis  Epistle.  There  is  a  gloss 
»^ijXa(f)tov,  "fumbling  his  way."  If  the  meaning  "  shortsighted"  (Arist.  Prol>l.  xxxi.  §  16)  be 
adopted  (as  in  E.  V.),  it  may  mean  "  blind  to  the  far-off  heavenly  things,  able  only  to  see  the 
near  earihiy  things."  ''  Comp.  Jos.  Antt.  li.  6,  §  9. 

12  I,e.,  hy  liaptism. — Chrysost.,  etc.  ^^  Ja.  ii.  10,  i:i.  2. 

'•*  "  Furnish  knowledge,  self-control,  etc.  (ver,  5),  and  you  shall  l)e  rewarded  in  kind  ;  for 
so  the  entrance  into  Christ's  eternal  kingdom  shall  be  furnished  richly  to  you." 

'5  Ver.  12.  Iv  Ttj  napovary  aXri$eia.     Cf.  Jude  5  ;   Rom.  xy.  14  ;   i  PeL  v.  12. 

I"'  A  mixture  of  the  metaphors  of  a  robe  and  a  building,  as  in  2  Cor.  v.  i  (De  Wette). 

1^  John  xxi.  17,  18  (but  ofcour.se  that  was  written  long  afterwards,  if  the  Epistle  be  genu- 
ine). I*'  ex"" — SvyaaOac,  as  in  Lk.  vii.  42. 

'■'•>  This  is  the  ordinary  meaning  of  (ivt^hijv  woiela-Oai..  I  have  already  noticed  the  interest- 
ing use  of  cr/ciji/cDjuta  and  efo6o5  {ru'rle  su/rn,  p.  204). 

20  ^v0oiS.  See  on  i  Tim.  i.  4,  iv.  7,  Lzye  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  517;  but  each  commentator 
guesses  differendy  as  to  the  kind  of  myth.^  alluded  to.  The  best  comment  is  Jo.s.  Avtt. 
Proem.  §  4  :  "  All  other  \zi\\'gi\'C\f>  folloioing  on  the  track  0/ their  myths,  transferred  to  the 
gods  the  shame  of  their  human  .sins." 

2>  67r6n-Tat,  a  technical  word  of  the  Eleusinian  mysteries  (used  in  2  Mace.  iii.  39). 

2'-!  lvixQf.i(r(\%,  a  most  unusual  expression,  found  also  in  1  Pet.  i.  13.  Perhaps  it  may  be 
explained  of  the  rushing  wind  accompanying  the  Bath  Kol.  Cf.  Acts  ii.  2.  It  is  analogous  to 
Vsi    (Is.  ix.  8).     The  Evangelists  use -ytvi/eTat,  epxerai  (Lk.  ix.  35;  John  xii.  30). 

-3  'J'he  ulory  is  "  the  Sliechinah"  whicli  uttered  the  voice  (utto). 

2^  O  vto?  p.ov,  6  a.yo.niyro'i  fxov,  J«{,  A.  C,  K,  L.  The  variations  from  the  Gospel  narrative 
are  in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle.      *'  /«  whom,"  lit.  "  unto  whom." 


THE   SECOND   EPISTLE  OF   ST.    PETER.  1 39 

whom  I  am  well  pleased — "»  And  this  voice  we  heard  borne  from  Heaven, 
when  we  were  with  him  in  the  Holy  Mount. ^  And  still  stronger  is  the  surety  we 
have  in  the  prophetic  word,^  whereunto  ye  do  well  if  ye  take  heed  ■•  as  to  a 
lamp  shining  in  a  squalid  place, ^  until  the  day  dawn,  and  the  morning  star  arise 
in  your  hearts  ;'•  knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  proves  to  be  of 
private  interpretation.''  For  prophecy  was  never  borne  along  by  will  of  man, 
but  being  borne  along  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  men  spoke  from  God  (i.  12 — 21). 

But  there  rose  false  prophets  also  among  the  people,  as  also  among  you  shall 
be  false  teachers,  of  a  kind  "^  who  shall  secretly  introduce  factions  of  perdition,'-' 
denying  even  the  Master  that  bought  them.'o  bringing  upon  themselves  swift  per- 
dition. And  many  shall  follow  in  the  track  11  of  their  wantonness/'-'  on  whose  ac- 
count the  way  of  the  truth  shall  be  railed  at.'^  And  in  covetousness,  with  ficti- 
tious speeches,  they  shall  make  trade  of  you,  for  whom,  since  long  ago,  their 
doom  idleth  not,  and  their  destruction  drowseth  not.''  For  if  God  spared  not 
angcb  who  sinned, '^  but,  hurling  them  to  Tartarus, i'"-  committed  them  to  dens  i^ 
of  darkness,  as  reserved  for  judgment — and  spared  not  the  ancient  world,  but 
preserved  Noah,  a  herald  of  righteousness, i*^  with  seven  others,  bringing  a  sud- 
den flood  on  the  world  of  the  impious  ;  and  calcining  the  cities  of  Sodom  and 

1  'J"he  sentence  is  unfinished  in  the  original  [Ana/col iit/ion). 

2  The  inference  from  this  expression,  as  showing  a  post-Apostolic  date,  is  not  unreasonable, 
but  the  epithet  in;iy  Ise  fairly  explained  by  Jewish  conceptions  (Ex.  iii.  5  ;  Josh.  v.  15). 

3  V'er.  19,  ^ejSaioTepoi'.  Why  " /;w;v  sure?"  Because  wider  in  its  range,  and  more 
varied,  and  comine  from  many,  and  bringing  a  more  intense  personal  conviction  than  the  tes- 
timony to  a  single  fact.  The  reference  to  prophecy  is  prominent  in  both  Epistles  (i  Pet.  i.  11, 
srtj.).  Perhaps,  too,  we  may  trace  the  early  tendency  to  underrate  the  force  of  individual 
visions,  which  we  find  existing  in  St.  Paul's  day  (see.Z.//<?  of  St.  Paul,  i.  193),  and  which  is 
so  strongly  marked  in  the  Clementines  {Hotn.  xvii.  13)  The  '"  prophetic  word  "  may  surely 
include  New  Testament  as  well  as  Old  'I'estament  prophecies  (Acts  xxi.  10,  i  Cor.  xii.  10, 
I  Thess.  v.  20  ;  i  Tim.  i.  18). 

^  Jos.  A)itt.  xi.  6,  §  12,  ots  ffotTjo-ere  KaXla?  fx-r}  irpo<TexovTe<;.  6  avxM^lPy* 

^  The  meaning  seems  to  be  that  the  lamp  of  prophecy  will  become  needless  111  the  full 
noonday  blaze  of  perfect  conviction. 

'  Of  tile  many  possible  explanations  of  these  word.s,  I  accept  that  which  makes  them  mean 
"  that  the  prophets  did  not  speak  by  spontaneous  knowledge,  and  spoke  more  than  they  could 
themselves  interpret."  as  where  Phllo  says,  "  the  prophet  utters  nothing  of  his  own."  If  his 
utterance  is  not  his  own,  his  uiterpretation  may  also  well  be  inadequate.  The  remark  then 
resembles  1  Pet.  i.  10-12.  The  -yiVerai  would  then  mean  that  History  proves  the  truth  of  this 
rem:>.rk.  'EttiAuo-is  only  occms  In  Aquila's  version  of  Gen.  xl.  8,  and  eTriAv'u  means  "'I  ex- 
plain" in  Mk.  iv.  34.  The  verb  errtAiiw  occurs  in  Gen.  xl.  8,  xli.  12,  and  th-i  explanation  of 
the  thought  must  be  looked  for  in  Gen.  xli.  15,  16  (conip.  Jer.  xxili.  26).  [.Since  writing  this 
note  I  see  that  Dr.  Abbott  points  out  that  several  words  are  here  borrowed  from  the  passage 
in  Philo,  Qiiis  Rer.  Dii'.  Ifaer.  p.  52,  viz. :  BeotftopriToS,  (^wo-i^6po?,  i^ios,  ctJ'aTe'AAei.  This 
seems  to  be  decisive  as  to  the  meaning.] 

**  otTtve?.  The  transition  from  the  true  to  the  false  prophets,  and  so  to  existing  false  teach- 
ers, is  very  natural. 

'■>  aipe'creis.     The  meaning  "heresies"  is  later  (cf.  i  Cor.  xi.  19,  Gal.  v.  20,  Tit.  iii.  10). 

10  Peter's  mere  momentary  "  denial "  at  a  moment  of  strong  temptation  differs  wholly  from 
this  persistent  negation  and  apostasy.  'A•yopao•a^'Ta— notice  the  clear  expression  of  Christ's 
death /or  all.  In  the  participial  constructions  of  tliis  chapter  (which  I  have  faithfully  repro- 
duced) the  sentences  sometimes  have  an  unfinished  look.  i^  e^aKoKovOi^aovaiv. 

'■■^  Le^-.,  do-eAyec'ais,  Js»,  A,  B,  C,  K,  L.     "  Lecheries,"  Wiclyf. 

13  This  furni.shes  us  with  an  important  historical  hint.  The  strange  and  odious  calumnies 
which  were  rife  from  the  earliest  days  against  the  Christians,  originated  in  the  antnioniian 
hcresi<-s  of  Gnostic  and  other  sects  in  which  perverted  doctrine  led  to  impure  life.  See  Jer. 
Ad?'.  Luc  if.  p.  53  ;   Epiphan.  Haer.  23. 

1^  TO  Kpi/xcu,  the  sentence  of  judgment ;  *cpt'<ris,  the  act.  Nucrra^ei,  lit.  "nods,"  "■  dor}nitj.t " 
(Matt.  XXV.  5).  ^  15  Gen.  vi.  2. 

1*  Ver.  4.  Taprapmaas  ;  a  strange  classic  JiaJ>ax  legomcnon.  Tart.nrus  is  the  Hebrew 
Gehinnom.  St.  Peter  does  not  follow  St.  Jude  in  specifying  the  traditional  sin  of  the  angeU  ; 
still  his  allusion  is  to  Jewish  tradition.  Cf.  Book  of  Enoch  v.  16  ;  x.  6;  xiv.  4,  etc.  On  such 
alhisions  see  Li/c  of  St.  Paul,  i.  58,  ii.  48-51,  etc.' 

'^''  Leg.,  o-etpot?,  J<,  A,  B,  C.  Here  again  St.  Peter  substitutes  a  word  of  similar  sound  for 
creipats,  "chains,"  which  may  have  been  a  variation  of  memory  for  Judc's  fiea/iot?.  I'here  is, 
however,  an  epic  daring  in  the  expression  '"''  chains  of  darkness  ;  "  "fetter  of  darkness  "  is 
found  In  Wisd.  xvii.  17. 

*^   That  Noah  was  a  preacher  was  a  natural  Jewish  inference  (Jos.  Autt.  i.  3,  §  i). 


I40  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Gomorrha,  condemned  them  with  overthrow,  having  made  them  a  warning  for 
those  who  should  hereafter  be  impious  ;  and  righteous  Lot,  utterly  distressed 
by  the  wanton  life  of  these  offenders, i  He  rescued — for  by  sight  and'hearing  the 
righteous  man,  dwelling  among  them  day  after  day,  was  torturing  his  righteous 
soul  with  their  lawless  deeds — the  Lord  knoweth  how  to  rescue  the  pious  from 
trial,  but  to  reserve  the  unrighteous,  under  punishment,  for  the  day  of  judgment; 
and  especially  those  who  walk  after  the  flesh  in  the  lust  of  pollution,  and  de- 
spise dominion.  Daring,  self-willed,  they  tremble  not  when  they  rail  at  glories, 2 
in  cases  wherein  angels,  greater  though  tliey  are  in  strength  and  might, =*  do  not 
bring  against  them*  before  the  Lord  a  railing  judgment.  But  these  as  mere  ir- 
rational animals,  born  for  capture  and  destruction, °  railing  in  things  which  they 
know  not,  in  their  own  corruption  shall  be  utterly  destroyed, ^  suffering  wrong 
as  the  hire  of  doing  wrong.''  Thinking  that  luxuriousness  in  the  day  *  is  pleas- 
ure, spots-'  and  blemishes,  luxuriating  in  their  own  deceits  i<*  while  they  ban- 
quet with  you,  having  eyes  full  of  an  adulteress, '^  and  insatiable  of  sin,  luring 
with  a  bait  unstable  souls,  having  a  heart  trained  in  covetousness,  children  of 
malediction  !  Abandoning  the  straight  path  they  wandered,  following  in  the 
path  of  Balaam  the  son  of  Bosor,^^  ^yho  loved  the  hire  of  wrongdoing,  but  re- 
ceived a  rebuke  for  his  own  transgression  :  a  dumb  beast  of  burden  '^  uttering  a 
human  voice  checked  the  prophet's  infatuation.  Ihese  are  waterless  springs, 
and  mists  driven  by  a  hurricane,  for  whom  the  mirk  of  darkness  has  been  re- 
served. For  uttering  inflations  of  foolishness  they  lure  with  a  bait  '*  in  the  lusts 
of  the  flesh,  in  wantonness,  those  who  were  scarcely  ^^  escaping  them  who 
spend  their  lives  in  error, — promising  them  liberty,  though  being  themselves 
slaves  of  corruption.  i«  For  by  whatever  any  one  has  been  worsted,  by  that  has 
he  also  been  enslaved.  For  if,  after  having  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world 
by  full  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  they  are  worsted  by 
being  again  entangled  in  them,  the  last  things  have  become  worse  to  them  than 


J  aGeafjitav,  implying  that  they  violated  the  most  sacred  and  natural  laws. 

2  Glories,  that  is,  at  "glorious  beings." 

3  '•  Fools  rush  in,  where  angels  fear  to  tread." 

4  This  can  only  mean  "against  glories" — i.e,^  against  angelic  dignities  even  after  their 
fall — and  the  verse  would  be  perfectly  inexplicable  without  the  allusion  of  Jude  to  Michael 
refraining  to  rail  at  Satan.  He  and  the  fallen  angels  were  ho^a-i  once,  just  as  they  may  still 
be  called  "angels."     Compare  Milton's — 

**  Less  than  Archangel  ruined,  or  excess 
0/ glory  obscured." 
Unwilling  to  adtfuce  Jude's  reference  to  th>,  dispute  between  Michael  and  Satan  about  the 
body  of  Moses,  which  was  only  recorded  by  apocryphal  writings  from  Jewish  tradition,  the 
writer  makes  the  reference  general,  so  that  the  reader  who  was  familiar  with  the  Old  I'esta- 
ment  would  rather  be  reminded  of  Zech.  iii.  i,  2. 

6  A  sacrificial  calf  ran  to  Rabbi  Judah  and  wept  in  his  bosom.  But  "go,"  he  said,  "  you 
were  created  for  this  purpose"  (Babha  Metsia,_/^  85  a). 

8  The  acceptance  of  Jude's  words,  and  their  application  in  a  totally  different  sense,  is  very 
remarkable.  St.  Jude's  language  reads  like  a  keen  epigram  ;  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  in 
St  Peter  a  remarkable  play  on  the  two  senses  of  the  word  (}>6opa,  viz.,  "corruption"  and 
"  destruction,"  v.  supra,  p.  201. 

'  Leg.  aSiKovixevoi,  ^,  B.     The  common  text  has  *oo/oitov^€voi,  "about  to  carry  off,"  A,  C. 

^  I.e.,  for  life's  brief  day.     "  Voluptatem  aestimantes  diei  delicias"  (Vulg.). 

^  <nrl\oi,  where  Jude  has  o-JriAaSe?,  "  sunken  reefs." 

JO  (XTraTais,  JtJ,  A.  C,  etc.,  for  Jude's  ayaTrais,  "  love  feasts"  (cf  2  Thess.  ii.  10). 

•  •  /otoixoAiSos  (cf.  Rev.  ii.  20).  But  if  the  reading  be  right  (for  fioixakia^,  ^,  A,)  the  allu- 
sion is  uncertain. 

12  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  x.  8),  St.  Peter,  and  St.  John  (Rev.  ii.  14,  etc.)  alike  allude  to  this 
false  prophet  as  a  tj'pe  of  false  teachers  in  their  own  day.  Bosor,  perhaps  a  (lalilean  corrup- 
tion of  Beor  ("ihysi,  with  an  intentional  assonance  (in  the  Jewish  fashion,  as  in  ]eruhhes/iel/i, 
Kir  Heres,  Baal  Aebub,  etc.,  see  Life  0/  Christ,  i.  456)  to  Bashar,  "  flesh." 

13  The  New  Testament  writers,  like  the  LXX.,  seem  to  avoid  oi/o?,  (ass)  which  led  to  Gen- 
tile jeers,  and  use  the  more  euphemistic  vno^vyiov. 

'■*  SfAed^ovaiv,  as  in  ver.  14  ;  only  found  in  Ja.  i.  14. 

'^  Leg,  oAt'yws,  A,  B,  etc. 

'^  John  viii.  34  ;  Rom.  viii.  21  ;  i  Pet.  ii.  16 ;  Gal.  v.  13  (Iren.  Hner.  xxi.  3).  An  old  way 
with  false  teachers  ((tcu.  iii.  5).  Their  argument  was,  that  the  Spirit  was  so  supreme  ;uij 
etherial  that  indulgence  of  the  flesh  could  not  harm  it. 


THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    UV    ST.    PETER.  141 

tlie  first,  1  For  it  had  been  better  for  them  not  to  have  fully  known  the  way  of 
righteousness,  than,  after  fully  knowing  it,  to  swerve  aside  from  the  holy  com- 
mandment delivered  to  them.  But  there  has  happened  to  them  the  fact  of  the 
tiue  proverb,  "  The  dog  turning  to  his  own  vomit,"  and  "  A  sow  that  had 
bathed  to  its  wallowing-place  of  mire  ""  (ii.  i — 22). 

This  is  now,  beloved,  the  Second  Epistle  I  am  writing  to  you,  in  both  ot 
which  I  am  trying  to  arouse  your  sincere  understanding,  by  reminding  you, — 
that  you  may  remember  tiie  words  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets,  and  the 
command  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour,  through  your  Apostles  ;  ^  recognising  this 
first,  that  there  shall  come  at  the  end  of  the  days  scoffers  in  their  scofhng,  walk- 
ing according  to  their  own  lusts,  and  saying,  Where  is  the  promise  of  His  com- 
ing ?  for  from  the  day  when  the  fathers  fell  asleep  ■*  all  things  are  continuing  as 
they  now  are,  from  the  beginning  of  creation.  For  this  they  wilfully  choose  to 
forget — that  there  were  heavens  from  of  old,  and  earth  composed  out  of 
water,  and  by  means  of  water, ^  by  the  word  of  God,  by  means  of  which  (water)^ 
the  then  world  being  overwhelmed  with  water  perished  ;  but  the  present  hea- 
vens and  earth  by  this  same  word  have  been  stored  with  treasuries  of  fire,^  be- 
ing reserved  for  the  day  of  judgment  and  destruction  of  impious  men.  But 
do  not  ^ye  forget  this  one  thing,  beloved,  that  one  day  with  the  Lord  is  as  a 
thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day.s  The  Lord  is  not  tardy  con- 
cerning His  promise  as  some  reckon  tardiness,  but  is  long-suffering  towards 
you,  not  wishing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repent- 
ance.9  But  the  day  of  the  Lord  shall  be  upon  us  as  a  thief,  in  which  the  hea- 
vens shall  pass  hurtlingly  away, if  the  orbs  of  Heaven,  being-scorched,"  shall  be 
dissolved,  and  the  earth  and  the  works  in  it  shall  be  burnt  up.'^  Since,  then,  all 
these  things  are  in  course  of  being  dissolved, i^  what  kind  of  men  ought  ye  to  be 
in  holy  ways  of  life  and  piety,  awaiting  and  hastening  1*  the  coming  of  the  day 
of  the  Lord,  because  of  which  the  heavens  being  set  on  fire  shall  be  dissolved, 
and  the  scorching  orbs  of  Heaven  shall  be  melted  ?  i^  But,  according  to  His 
promise,  we  expect  new  heavens  and  anew  earth,  in  which  righteousness  dwell- 

*  Matt.  xii.  45. 

2  Kr.  22,  TO  T^s  Trapoifxta?,  cf.  to  t^5  (tuk?};.  Matt.  xxi.  21.  The  language  differs  so  much 
from  Prov.  xxvi.  11  that  probably  this  is  merely  a  current  pro\erb  {^e_g:,  (cuAio-juia,  {^,  A,  K,  L). 

3  "  Vour  Apostles" — i.e.,  those  who  first  preached  to  you.     Cf.  i  Cor.  ix.  2. 

*  Cf.  Mai.  ii.  17  ;  Ps.  xlii.  4  The  exact  reference  to  "  the  fatliers"  is  difficult  to  determine. 
It  may  mean  those  well-known  Christian  teachers  and  others  (i  Thess.  iv.  15),  who,  like  St. 
James  the  elder,  had  died  between  a.d.  33  and  a.d.  68.  _  But  it  may  naturally  include  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets  to  whom  the  promise  came  (Rom.  ix.  5).  St.  Peter  refutes  this  taunt 
about  "  t/ie  status  quo  of  the  ivorUi"  (a)  by  the  deluge  of  water,  which  shall  be  followed  by 
the  deluge  of  fire  (5-7)  ;  and  0)  by  the  difference  between  God's  conception  of  time  and 
man's  (8-10). 

5  The  allusion  seems  to  be  to  water,  as  the  vAtj,  the  matter  out  of  which  the  world  was 
made  (as  in  Clem.  Ho>n.  xi.  24) — the  material  <zA.y\i,&  of  the  world,  as  Thales  also  thought ; — 
and  to  water  as  also  the  itistru/neyital  czmsq  (fitaTcAiKcs)  of  the  world,  Gen.  i.  6.  Cf.  Pss. 
xxiv.  2  ;  cxxxvi.  6.  ^  Gen.  vii.  11. 

''  Lit,  '•  treasured  with  fire,"  alluding  to  the  subtei-ranean  fires.  IJut  it  may  be  "  treasured 
up  [i.e.,  reserved)  for  fire."  We  find  the  same  conception  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  i.  6.  See 
Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  9  ;  Hippol.  Ref.  Haer.  ix.  28. 

«  "The  dial  of  the  ages— the  aeoniologium — differs  from  the  horologe  of  time." — Bengel, 
Ps.  xc.  4. 

9  His  seeming  delay  is  not  delay,  but  mercy  and  forbearance  [Aufgeschoben  nicht  aufge- 
hohen)  :  "  Patiens  quia  aeternus"  (Aug.).  See  Habbak.  ii.  3;  Ezek.  xviii.  23,  xxxiii.  n; 
Ecclus.  x.xxv.  22  ;   Heb.  x.  37  ;   i  Tim.  ii.  4. 

1"  poi^-rjSdi/,  one  of  the  2%lschylean  expressions  (T€<^pwaas,  raprapuxTa^,  vwepoyKa,  \3.i\aij/, 
fo'f^os,  aetpb?,  etc.)  of  this  Episde. 

1'  (TTotxela  may  mean  the  heavenly  bodies,  as  in  Justin  Martyr,  A/oi.  ii.  5  (Matt.  xxiv.  29). 
KaucroO^iai  is  first  found  in  Dloscorides,  in  the  sense  of  feverish. 

1-  J\'.  B,  K  read  eupefl^aeTai,  ''  shall  be  found."  This  makes  very  dubious  sense,  unless 
the  clause  be  interrogative.  It  had  occurred  to  me,  before  I  saw  it  remarked  elsewhere,  that 
it  might  be  some  accidental  confusion  with  the  Latin  wentur. 

1^  This  is  the  J>raesens  futurascens,  the  grand  prophetic  present  which  assumes  the  pro- 
gressive realisation  of  the  fixed  decree. 

i*  Just  as  the  Jews  believed  that  by  faithful  obedience  to  the  Law  they  would  speed  the 
Advent  of  the  Messiah  (see  Life  o/St.  Paul,  i.  65,  66).  i»  Is.  xxxiv.  4  ;  Mic.  i,  4- 


142  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

eth.i  Wherefore,  beloved,  since  ye  expect  these  things,  give  diligence,  to  be 
found  spotless  and  blameless  for  Him  in  peace,  and  account  as  salvation  the 
long-suffering  of  our  Lord,  even  as  also  our  beloved  brother  Paul,  according 
to  the  wisdom  given  to  him, 2  wrote  to  you,^  as  also  in  all  his  epistles,  speaking 
in  them  about  these  things  ; — in  which  are  some  difficulties  which  the  unlearned 
and  unstable  distort,  as  also  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures,'  to  their  own  perdition. 
Ye,  then,  beloved,  knowing  these  things  beforehand,  be  on  your  guard,  lest, 
being  carried  away  by  the  error  of  the  lawless,  ye  fall  away  from  your  own 
steadfastness.  But  increase  in  the  grace  and  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  to  Whom  be  the  glory  both  now  and  unto  the  day  of 
eternity.^ 

So — abruptly — the  Epistle  ends.  There  are  no  saluta- 
tions, there  is  no  benediction.  The  absence  of  the  former 
is  easily  understood,  because  the  letter  was  obviously  in- 
tended to  be  CEcumenical  in  character  ;  and  perhaps  this, 
or  the  indignant  agitation  which  was  shaking  the  heart  of 
the  writer,  or  even  that  share  in  the  composition  which  I 
have  supposed  to  belong  to  another,  may  also  account  for 
the  absence  of  the  blessing.  No  conclusion,  it  seems  to  me, 
can  be  drawn  from  this  circumstance,  either  for  or  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  letter.  But  whether  it  be  genuine 
or  not,  or  genuine  only  in  a  partial  and  secondary  sense, 
no  one  can  read  it  without  a  recognition  of  its  power,  or 
without  a  conviction  that  the  "grace  of  superintendency  " 
was  at  work  when,  in  the  fourth  century,  it  was  finally  ad- 
mitted into  the  Canon  of  the  Church.^  We  do  not  possess 
in  it  a  letter  of  the  intense  and  touching  personal  interest 
which  attaches  to  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Timo- 
thy, because  it  gives  us  far  less  insight  into  the  writer's  per- 
sonal feelings,  and  because  its  absolute  genuineness  is  not 
above  suspicion  ;  but  if  we  do  not  hear  in  this  Epistle,  but 
rather  in  its  predecessor,  the  last  words  of  the  great  Apostle 
of  the  Circumcision,  there  is  at  least  a  reasonable  probabil- 
ity that  we  hear  the  echo  of  some  of  his  latest  thoughts. 


^  Is.  xxxii.  16 :  Ixv.  25.  2  J  Qor_  JJJ    jq. 

3  Even  if  it  is  assumed  that  this  can  only  refer  to  letters  addressed  to  Asia,  we  can  still  re- 
fer it  to  Rom.  ii.  4,  ix.  2  ("not  knowing  that  the  goodness  of  (iod  is  leading  thee  to  repent- 
ance"), for  it  is  nearly  certain  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  addressed,  among  other 
Churches,  to  Ephcsus  (see  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  170).  'J'he  allusion  to  ihis  Epistle  would  at 
once  account  for  the  remark  that  some  things  in  St.  Paul's  writings  were  "  hard  to  he  under- 
stood." The  doctrine^  of  Freedom  and  Justification  by  Faith  were  peculiaily  liable  to  ignorant 
and  dangerous  perversion,  as  St.  Paul  himself  was  well  aware  (Rom.  iii.  8  ;  v.  20 ;  x  Cor.  vi. 
12-20  ;  Gal.  V.  1^-26).     Others  explain  the  reference  by  i  Thess.  iv.  13-v.  11,  etc. 

4  'I'he  writings  of  Christian  Prophets.  Apostles,  and  E/angelists  would  soon  acquire  a  posi- 
tion on  the  same  level  as  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.     See  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19. 

*  "All  Eternity  is  one  Day." — (Estius.) 

*  I  entirely  disagree  with  Dr.  Abbott  in  his  very  slighting  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
Epistle.  "In  omnibus  Epistola;  parlibus,"  says  Calvin,  "  spiritus  Christi  majestas  se  ex- 
serit." 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JUDE.  143 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JUDE. 

'lovSo?  eypa^ev  eirtoroA*)!'  oAtyotTTtxoi'  ixey  nen\-fip<afJiivii]v  5e  ttj?  ovpaviov  ;(^aptT05  eppo*- 
fj.ey(tiy  \6y<j>i>. — Okighn  (in  Matt.  xiii.  55). 

The  authenticity  of  the  brief  but  interesting  Epistle  of  St. 
Jude  is  more  strongly  supported  by  external  evidence  than 
that  of  St.  Peter.  This  circumstance  alone  tends  to  estab- 
lish its  priority  of  origin.  It  was  indeed  ranked  by  Euse- 
bius,  as  were  five  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  among  the  *'  dis- 
puted" books  ;  but  it  was  accepted  by  Tertullian/  Clemens 
of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Jerome,  and  Ephraem  Syrus,  and 
though  absent  from  the  Peshito,  is  recognised  in  the  Mura- 
torian  Canon.  This  acceptance  is  the  more  remarkable,  be- 
cause in  the  brief  space  of  twenty-five  verses  it  presents  so 
many  peculiarities.  It  startled  many  Christian  readers  even 
in  the  first  three  centuries  alike  by  its  allusions  to  strange 
Jewish  legends  unauthorized  by  Scripture,  and  by  its  quo- 
tation from  a  book  which  was  acknowledged  to  be  apocry- 
phal. On  these  grounds,  as  St.  Jerome  tells  us,  most  men 
in  his  day  rejected  it,  and  the  triumph  of  its  canonicity  over 
such  prejudices  can  only  have  been  due  to  the  strong  rea- 
sons for  its  acceptance.  One  of  those  reasons  is  the  absence 
of  any  motive  for  a  pseudonym  so  little  known  as  that  of 
Jude,  and  one  which  even  in  the  early  Church  furnished  no 
certainty  as  to  the  identity  of  the  writer.  Apocryphal  liter- 
ature was  busy  from  the  first  with  the  name  of  St.  Peter ; " 
and  any  one  who  wished  to  secure  recognition  for  his  own 
opinions  by  introducing  them  under  the  shadow  of  a  mighty 
name,  would  also  have  had  eveiy  temptation  to  give  them 
the  weight  of  authority  which  they  would  derive  from  the 
name  of  James,  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  But  there  existed 
no  such  reason  for  adopting  the  name  of  Jude.  The  Jude 
who  was  believed  to  have  written  this  Epistle  was  not  one 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  He  is  never  expressly  spoken  of 
as  an  Apostle,  even  in  the  wider  sense.  His  name  is  barely 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  and  only  mentioned  at 
all  in  connection  with  the  unbelief  which  he  shared  with  his 


J  He  is  the  earliest  who  mentiois  it.     De  habit,  mul.  3. 

2  Serapion — to.  Se  hv6\x.aTi  avTuiv  ipevSeTriypa<}>a  .  .  .  irapaiTiafieffa  (Routh,  Jicl.  Sacr.  1. 
470).  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  3.  We  know  that  there  was  a  "  Gospel"  and  an  "  Apocalypse"  of 
Peter. 


144  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

three  brothers  during  the  years  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  pre- 
vious to  that  conversion  which,  as  we  may  conclude  from 
various  indications,  was  effected  by  the  overwhelming  evi- 
dence for  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead.  So  little, 
indeed,  is  known  of  St.  Jude,  that  even  tradition,  which  de- 
lights to  furnish  particulars  respecting  the  Apostles  and 
leaders  of  the  early  Church,  is  silent  about  him.  Apart  from 
a  few  uncertain  inferences,  no  Christian  legend,  no  pious 
martyrologist,  no  learned  enquirer  can  tell  us  one  single 
particular  about  the  life,  the  labours,  or  the  death  of  Jude. 
The  only  story  in  which  his  name  occurs  is  the  one  told  us 
by  Hegesippus,  and  preserved  in  Eusebius.  He  says  that 
Domitian's  jealousy  was  excited  by  rumours  that  some  of 
the  earthly  family  of  Him  Whom  Christians  adored  as  the 
King  of  the  Universe  were  still  living  in  Palestine.  Proph- 
ecies about  the  advent  of  a  great  kingdom  which  was  to 
take  its  rise  in  the  East  had  been  prevalent  in  the  days  of 
Nero,  and  were  not  entirely  set  at  rest  by  the  elevation  of 
Vespasian  to  the  Empire  from  the  command  of  the  army  in 
Syria.  Timid  from  the  sense  of  his  own  manifold  crimes, 
Domitian  determined  to  enquire  into  the  matter,  and  ordered 
some  of  these  "  relations  of  the  Lord,"  or  Desposyni,  as  they 
were  called,  to  be  brought  into  his  presence.  They  were 
grandsons  of  the  ''Jucle  the  brother  of  James"  who  wrote 
this  Epistle,  and  when  Domitian  ascertained  that  they  only 
possessed  a  few  acres  of  land,  and  saw  that  they  filled  no 
higher  rank  than  that  of  peasants  of  Palestine,  whose  hands 
wxre  horny  with  daily  labour,  he  dismissed  them  to  their 
homes  unharmed  and  with  disdain,'— content  with  their  as- 
surance that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  was  neither  earthly  nor 
of  this  w^orld,  but  heavenly  and  angelical.^ 

I  have  here  assumed  that  the  author  of  this  short  Epistle 
was  the  person  whom  he  describes  himself  as  being — "Jude 
the  brother  of  James."  That  Jude  v^^as  not  one  of  the 
Twelve  may  be  regarded  as  certain.  He  does  not  profess 
to  be  an  Apostle,  and  speaks, of  the  Apostles  as  of  a  class  to 
which  he  did  not  belong.^  The  only  Apostle  besides  Judas 
Iscariot  who  bore  that  very  common  name  was  Judas  (tlie 
son)  of  James,"  surnamed  Lcbbccus  or  Thadda-us.  But  early 
tradition  says  that  this  Apostle  laboured  in  Syria,  and  died ' 


1  Hegesipp.  ap.  Euseb.  iii.  20.    They  told  Domitian  that  they  only  had  between  tlicni  about 
seven  acres  of  land,  which  they  farmed  themselves. 

2  Sec  Routh,  Rel.  Sacr.  196,  and  notes ;  Heury,  Hist.  Reel,  ii.  §  52. 

3  Ver.  17,  18.  •*  Luke  vi.  16. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF    ST.    JUDE.  1 45 

at  Edessa  ;  and  if  he  had  been  the  author,  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  account  for  that  non-acceptance  of  his  Epistle 
in  the  early  Syrian  Church  which  is  proved  by  its  absence 
from  the  Peshito  Version.'  But,  besides  this,  when  the 
writer  calls  himself  "  the  brother  of  James  "  it  is  unanimous- 
ly admitted  that  he  can  only  mean  one  James — the  James 
who,  after  the  martyrdom  of  the  son  of  Zebedee,  was  uni- 
versally known  throughout  the  Church — that  ''pillar"  (jf 
.the  Church  of  Jerusalem  who  was  the  undisputed  head  of 
Judaic  Christianity,  and  was  distinguished  as  ''  the  brother 
of  the  .Lord." 

I  shall  not    here    enter  into  the    disputed  question    as 
to  who   were  ''-the    brethren    of    the    Lord,"    at    which    I 
must   again    glance    in    speaking    of    the    Epistle    of    S% 
James. 

All  that  need  here  be  said  is,  that  Jude,  though  not  an 
Apostle,  was  a  brother  of  James,  and  therefore  a  brother 
— or,  at  least,  a  brother  in  common  parlance — of  the  Lord.  ■ 
If  it  be  asked  why  he  does  not  give  himself  this  title,  the 
simplest  answer  is  that  neither  does  James.  Those  who  had 
a  right  to  it  would  be  the  least  likely  to  employ  it.  None 
were  so  well  aware  as  they  that  from  the  moment  when 
Christ  began  His  ministry  His  whole  relations  to  them  and 
to  His  Mother  had  been  essentially  altered.  On  more  than 
one  occasion,  when  they  aspired  to  control  His  actions  and 
direct  His  movements.  He  had  tried  to  make  clear  to  them 
that  they  must  henceforth  recognise  the  Divine  mystery  of 
His  Being.  He  had  even  classed  them  as  children  of  the 
world,  whom  it  was  therefore  impossible  for  the  world  to 
hate  as  it  hated  Him.^  And  if  this  was  the  case  during  His 
earthly  ministry,  how  infinitely  more  was  it  the  case  after 
His  Resurrection,  and  when  He  had  ascended  to  the  right 
hand  of  the  Majesty  on  High  !  It  was  natural  that  the  early 
Church  should  speak  of  those  holy  men — who,  if  they  were 
not  the  sons  of  the  Mother  of  Jesus,  had  at  any  rate  been 
trained  under  the  same  roof  with  Him — as  "the  brethren  of 
the  Lord."  It  was  still  more  natural  that,  knowing  Him  at 
last,  and  believing  on  Him  after  He  had  risen  from  the 
dead,  they  should  themselves  shrink  from  the  adoption  of  a 

1  The  "  Jude  of  James,"  who  was  one  of  the  twelve  (Luke  vi.  16  ;  Acts  i.  13),  is  called  a 
son  <7/Jaines  in  Tyndale's,  Cranmer's,  and  Luther's  versions,  and  in  the  text  of  the  Revised 
Version. 

2  John  ii.  4  (I  have  shown,  however,  in  the  Li/e  of  Christ  (i.  165)  that  neither  these  words, 
nor  the  address  "  Woman  !  "  involved  any  of  the  harshness  or  want  of  the  most  delicate  rev- 
erence which  the  English  translation  seems  tu  imply)  ;   vii.  7  ;   Luke  xi.  28  ;    Matt.  xii.  50. 


146  THE  EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

title  which  pointed  to  a  partial  and  earthly  relationship,  of 
which  they  could  not  but  feel  themselves  transcendently  un- 
worthy. As  for  the  later  term  adelphotheos,  or  ''brother  of 
God,"  which  arose  to  describe  this  relationship,'  I  believe 
that  St.  James  and  St.  Jude  would  have  repudiated  it  with 
indignant  energy,  as  arising  from  a  reckless  confusion  of 
earthly  relationships  and  Divine  mysteries.  They  could  not 
prevent  their  fellow-Christians  from  speaking  of  them  as 
the  "  brethren  of  the  Lord,"  but  scarcely  even  for  purposes 
of  identification  would  they  have  been  willing  to  use  such 
a  title  of  themselves.  Like  St.  Paul,  they  must  have  felt 
that  though  they  had  known  "Christ  after  the  flesh,"  yet 
henceforth  they  knew  Him  "after  the  flesh-"  no  more.  To 
Iftive  been,  in  any  sense,  brothers  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in 
the  humiliation  of  His  earthly  life  gave  them  no  right  to 
speak  of  themselves  authoritatively  as  brothers  of  the  Eter- 
nal Son  of  God  now  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty 
on  high. 

On  the  other  hand,  nothing  was  more  natural  than  that 
Jude  should  describe  himself  as  "  the  brother  of  James." 
His  object  was  to  tell  his  readers  who  he  w^as,  and  how  they 
might  distinguish  him  from  thousands  of  other  Jews  who 
bore  his  name.  He  was  personally  unknown  to  all  but  a 
few.  If  he  called  himself  "the  brother  of  James,"  his  iden- 
tity would  be  recognised  by  all.  He  would  have  some  in- 
fluence as  a  brother  of  the  great  "  Bishop  "  of  Jerusalem, 
w4iose  fame  had  spread  through  every  community  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  w^hose  authority,  as  a  sort  of  Chris- 
tian High-Priest,  was  recognised  by  the  myriads  of  Jewish 
Christians  "^  who  still  went  up  to  the  Holy  City  at  the  great 
yearly  feasts. 

Further  than  this  we  only  know  the  single  fact  that  St. 
Jude  was  married.  This  we  learn  from  the  curious  anec- 
dote of  Hegesippus  which  I  have  quoted  on  a  previous 
page.  It  gives  us  an  interesting  glimpse  of  the  simplicity 
and  poverty  which  continued  to  the  last  to  be  the  earthly 
lot  of  those  jvho  were  connected  with  the  Holy  Family  of 
Nazareth  ;  and  it  is  the  more  interesting  because  it  is  the 
last  glimpse  of  them  afforded  to  us  by  either  secular  or 
sacred    history.      Hegesippus  says  that    they  lived  till  the 

'  It  is  found  in  the  superscription  of  the  cursi%'e  Manuscript  f,  'AAAo?  a5eA(^60eo?  -raS* 
'louSa?  eutre/Se'etrii',  which  also  has  ypa/ui/uia  Trpbs  'E/3patovs  Icucti/Sou  a.Se\<j)o6eov  as  a  super- 
scription to  tlie  I'-pistle  of  St.  James. 

■■^  Acts  xxi.  20 :  TToo-ai  ixvpid8e<:  .  .  .  'louSaiojf  twc  Trea'icrrcuKOTui'. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JUDE.  1 47 

days  of  Trajan,  and  perhaps  implies  that  the  race  of  the 
Desposyni  ended  with  them.'  This  anecdote  also  accords 
with  the  incidental  allusion  of  St.  Paul,  which,  in  contra- 
diction to  Ebionite  traditions,  speaks  of  the  brethren  of  the 
Lord  as  being  not  only  married  men,  but  even  as  travelling 
about  with  their  wives  or  Christian  sisters  on  various  mis- 
sions.^ 

In  the  latter  allusion  we  can  see  the  possibility  of  cir- 
cumstances which  may  have  called  forth  the  Epistle  of  St. 
Jude.  If  he  travelled  as  one  of  the  early  preachers  of  Chris- 
tianity, many  years  could  not  have  elapsed  before  he  learnt 
by  painful  experience  that  it  was  possible  to  accept  the  pro- 
fession of  Christianity  without  any  participation  in  the  holi- 
ness which  it  required.  The  imaginative  sentiment  which 
dwells  with  rapture  on  the  supposed  perfection  of  the  early 
Christian  Church,  is  one  which  is  cherished  in  defiance  of 
history  and  Scripture.  Hegesippus  '  says  that  till  the  days 
when  Symeon,  son  of  Clopas,^  was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
the  Church  was  a  virgin,  and  that  then  ''Thebuthis"  began 
to  introduce  heresies  because  he  had  not  been  elected 
bishop.  He  is,  however,  probably  taking  a  Hebrew  word 
for  a  person.  True  Christians  did  indeed  preach  a  standard 
of  ideal  holiness,  and  approached  that  standard  in  lives 
more  noble  and  more  innocent  than  any  which  the  world 
had  ever  seen.  But  from  the  first  the  drag-net  of  the  Church 
contained  fish  both  bad  and  good,  and  from  the  first  the 
tares  sown  by  the  enemy  began  to  spring  up  thickly  among 
the  growing  wheat.  Many  of  the  converts  had  barely  extri- 
cated themselves  from  the  vices  of  the  heathendom  by  which 
they  were  surrounded.*  Some  openly  relapsed  into  pagan 
practices.^  Others,  as  time  went  on,  betrayed  a  Satanic  in- 
genuity in  making  their  spiritual  freedom  a  cloak  for  their 
carnal  lusts. ^  The  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  exhibits  to  us 
a  Church  of  wTiich  the  discipline  was  inchoate  and  the  mo- 
rality deplorable.  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  proves 
that  there  had  been  an  influx  of  gnosticising  heresies,  which 
illustrated  the  fatal  affinity  of  religious  error  to  moral  degra- 

1  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  20. 

2  I  Cor.  ix.  5.  '"A  sister,  a  wife," appears  to  mean,  as  it  is  rendered  in  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion, "a  wife  who  is  a  believer." 

3  Ap.  Euseb.  //,  E.  iv.  22.  For  "Thebuthis,"  Rufinus  has  "'Jheobutes  quidam  "  ;  see 
Routh,  i.  237.     It  may  be  connected  with  DSP,   and  may  mean  "fillli.'" 

•*  Rufinus  has  Cleofias. 

*  This  is  even  more  apparent  in  the  original  of  such  passages  as  i  Thess.  iv.  6  and  F.ph. 
V.  3,  than  it  is  in  the  English  version,  where  it  is  happily  obscured  by  the  rendering  <  f  TrAeo- 
»'€|ia  by  "covetousness."       ^  See  i  Cor.  v.  i-ii  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  21.       '  i  Pet.  ii.  16;  Gal.  v.  >3. 


I48  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

dation.  The  Pastoral  Epistles  show  that  these  germs  of  sin- 
ful practice  and  erroneous  theory  had  blossomed  with  fatal 
rapidity.  In  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  and  the  Second  Epistle 
of  St.  Peter  we  see  perhaps  still  later  developments  of  these 
tendencies.  The  former  denounces  the  atrocities  of  con- 
duct, the  latter  the  audacities  of  opinion,  which  displayed 
themselves  in  men  who,  in  the  still  tentative  organisation 
of  Christian  discipline,  and  before  the  Church  had  per- 
fected the  bulwark  of  her  episcopate,  were  by  the  outer 
world  identified  with  Christians,  and  had  crept  in  unawares 
among  the  faitful.  If  Jude  in  one  of  his  mission  journeys 
came  into  personal  contact  with  any  of  these  deadly  hypo- 
crites, and  was  brought  face  to  face  with  thei.r  extending  in- 
fluence, we  can  well  imagine  that  one  who  had  lived  from 
childhood  in  a  home  of  spotless  purity,  would  have  sat 
down  in  a  flame  of  zeal  to  wrap  such  infamous  offenders  in 
the  w^hirlwind  of  his  wrath.  The  anger  of  a  pure-hearted 
Jew"  might  sometimes  burn  against  the  heathen  who  knew 
not  God  ;  but  here  were  Christians — Christians  who  claimed 
yet  loftier  privileges  than  Israel  of  old.  Christians  who  had 
received  a  grander  law  and  a  diviner  spirit.  Christians  who 
had  been  admitted  into  a  holier  sanctuary  only  to  become 
guilty  of  a  more  heinous  sacrilege  !  They  were  doing  the 
deeds  of  darkness  while  they  stood  in  the  noon-day.  They 
claimed  higher  prerogatives  than  the  Jew,  yet  they  lived  in 
viler  practices  than  the  Gentile.  The  fulness  of  their  know- 
ledge aggravated  the  perversity  of  their  ignorance  ;  the 
depth  of  the  abyss  into  which  they  had  sunk  was  only  meas- 
urable by  the  glory  of  the  height  from  which  they  had 
fallen. 

"Oh,  deeper  dole, 
That  so  august  a  spirit,  shrined  so  fair, 
Should,  from  the  starry  session  of  its  peers, 
Decline  to  quench  so  bright  a  brilliancy 
In  Hell's  sick  spume  I     Ah  me,  the  deeper  dole  !  " 

Filled  with  the  burning  indignation  which  was  inspired  alike 
by  the  Gospel,  Jude  determined  to  warn  the  infant  Churcli 
against  their  perilous  influence.  It  was  his  object  to  ex- 
pose and  to  denounce  them  ; — and  he  did  not  spare. 

But  though  the  intention  of  the  Epistle,  as  he  himself 
tells  us,  is  thus  distinct,  we  know  nothing  of  the  date  at 
which  it  was  written,  or  of  the  place  from  which  it  w^as  sent, 
or  of  the  Churches  to  which  it  was  addressed.  That  it  v/as 
written  in  Palestine,  and  addressed  to  Corinth  or  to  Alex- 
andria,   are  conjectures,   which  may  be  correct,  but  which 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JUDE.  I49 

rest  on  no  adequate  foundation.  St.  Judc  merely  addresses 
his  warnings  to  faithfid  Christians.  The  notion  that  his 
letter  was  dictated  by  animosity  towards  St.  Paul  or  his 
followers,  may  be  mentioned  as  a  curiosity  of  criticism.'  It 
is  obvious  that  bad  men,  whether  Paulinists  or  Judaists, 
might  fall  into  grievous  aberrations.  Truths  can  always  be 
distorted  by  headstrong  partisans.  There  may  have  been 
nominal  Paulinists — indeed  w^e  know  that  there  were  '^ — who 
wrested  St.  Paul's  language  into  the  wicked  inferences  that 
we  may  sin  in  order  that  grace  may  abound  ;  and  that,  since 
we  are  justified  by  faith,  works  are  superfluous  ;  or  even, 
as  we  are  told  in  modern  revivalist  hymns,  that  "  works  are 
deadly."  But  that  Judaists  were  capable  of  heresies  no  less 
disastrous  is  proved  by  the  way  in  which  they  and  their  ad- 
herents are  addressed  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles."  There  is  no 
reason  for  asserting  that  the  one  class  are  here  denounced 
more  than  the  other ;  and  how  little  St.  Jude  was  likely  to 
think  of  St.  Paul  w^ith  bitter  feelings  is  happily,  thougli 
most  incidentally,  revealed,  not  only  by  the  analogous  tone 
of  St.  Paul's  own  warnings,  but  also  by  the  impress  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  on  the  form  which  St.  Jude  adopts  for 
his  final  benediction.  We  reject  the  theories  of  M.  Renan 
and  the  more  extravagant  follow^ers  of  the  school  of  Tu- 
bingen, not  from  any  <?/r/W'/ views — for  we  know  that  in 
that  epoch,  as  in  all  others,  theological  differences  were  wnde 
and  deep,  and  theological  controversies,  even  between  men 
of  the  Apostolic  age  could  be  bitter  and  impassioned' — but 
we  reject  them  because  they  rest  on  no  foundation,  and 
because  they  are  contradicted  by  facts  of  which  all  can 
judge. 

For  purposes  of  exact  comparison  with  the  cognate 
paragraphs  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  it  may  be 
well  to  translate  this  letter  also  in  a  style  more  literal  than 
that  of  our  English  Version,  and  then  to  consider  the  main 
problems  which  it  presents.  It  is  only  by  the  aid  of  a  literal 
translation  that  the  English  reader  can  really  estimate 
tlie  wide  divergence  of  St.  Jude's  style  from  the  ordinary 
style  of  the  New  Testament  writers.    '  In  order  that  all  may 

1  Renan,  who  accepts  many  of  the  theories  of  the  Tubingen  School  in  the  fullest  develop- 
ment which  they  have  received  at  the  hands  of  Schwegler  and  Volkmar,  sees  m  the  Epistle  of 
St.  Jude  one  of  those  venomous  compositions,  full  of  deadly  hatred,  which  he  supposes  to 
have  been  circulated  through  the  Juda-o-Cbristian  communities  by  emissaries  of  St.  Janries,  to 
counteract  the  growing  influence  of  St.  Paul  !  See  these  views  ably  criticised  by  Ritschl, 
Studien  u.  Krit.  i86i,  p.  103^.  ^  Rom.  iii.  8;  2  Pet.  m.  15- 

3  Gal.  i.  9  ■   V.  12  ;  vi.  12  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  20,  etc.  *  Acts  xv.  2.     iroMij  tru^r/T^o-i?. 


I50  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

take  in  at  a  glance  the  affinity  between  this  Epistle  and  the 
Second  of  St.  Peter,  I  have  here  printed  in  italics  those 
identical  or  closely  analogous  words  and  phrases  which 
occur  in  both. 

Jude,  a  slave  of  yeszis  Christ  and  a  brother  of  James,  to  them  that  are  be- 
loved in  God  the  Father  and  have  been  kept  for  Jesus  Christ, ^  being  elect, 
mercy  to  you,  <\xi^peace^  and  love  be  multiplied." 

Beloved, 3  in  giving  all  diligence  to  write  to  you  respecting  our  common  sal- 
vation,* I  felt  a  necessity  to  write  at  once  ^  exhorting  you  to  fight  in  protection  " 
of  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints.  For  there  slank  in''  certain  per- 
sons ^  who  have  long  ago  been  fore-described  (in  prophecy)  as  doomed  for  this 
se?itejice,  impious  men,  changing  the  grace  of  our  God  into  wantonness,^  and 
denying  \S\&  only  Master,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ?^  But  I  desire  to  remind 
you,  tkonghye  know  all  things,  once  for  all,"  that  Jesus, ^^  after  saving  a  people 
from  the  land  of  Egypt,  secondly  destroyed  such  as  believed  not.i^ 

And  angels,  those  who  kept  not  their  own  dignity, ^^  but  abandoned  their 
proper  habitation,  he  hath  kepf^^  for  the  judgment  of  the  great  day  in  everlasting 
chains  under  mirky  gloom.^^  Even  as  Sodom  and  Go}norrha,  and  the  cities 
aroimd  them,  giving  themselves  to  fornication  in  like  manner  with  these, '^  and 
going  after  s\.x'a.r\gejlesh,  are  set  forth  as  an  example,  undergoing  a  penalty  of 
eternal  fire.'^    Yet,  notwithstanding,  in  like  manner,  these  persons  also  in  their 

I  See  John  xvii.  ii.  ^  Compare  Eph.  vi.  23. 
3  Onlv  as  an  opening  address  in  3  John  2. 

■1  Cf.  tcroTi/iAoi/  TTio-Tiv,  2  Pet.  i.  i.  Even  where  the  ivords  of  the  two  ^vriters  are  not  iden- 
tical there  is  often  a  close  analogy  between  the  meanings  which  the  words  express. 

5  ypdxliai.  The  word  previously  used  is  ypa.<l>eLv.  The  sudden  change  of  tense  certainly 
seems  to  imply  that  St.  Jude  had  intended  to  write  a  more  general  letter,  but  felt  compelled 
by  the  present  necessity  to  write  this  immediate  warning. 

*  enayiovi^ecrOai^  super-certare. 

'  jrapeto-e'Suo-a;'  ;  cf.  2  Pet.  ii.  i,  Trapeio-a^ouo-tv.     Gal.  ii.  4  ;  irapctcraKTOi/s,  7rapei<Tr)A6ov. 

^  Ttves  and  av^ptoffoi  are  both  depreciative  (Gal  ii.  12). 

3  How  prevalent  was  this  dangerous  possibility  we  see  from  i  Cor.  vi.  9-18  ;  1  John  iii.  7- 
10  ;  2  Pet.  ii. 

10  Or  "  our  only  T.ord  and  Master."  X'  A,  B,  C  omit  ^eai' ;  but  probably  (as  in  Luke  li. 
29  ;  Acts  iv.  24  ;  Rev.  vi.  10,  etc.)  Seo-n-orrjs  refers  to  God.  though  it  is  used  of  Christ  in  2  Pet. 

"•    !•  .... 

II  I.e.,  though  ye  have  once  for  all  received  all  necessary  instruction  in  matters  pertauimg 
to  salvation. 

12  "  Jesus"  is  the  more  difficult,  and  therefore  more  probable,  reading  of  A,  B.  It  is  ex- 
plained by  I  Cor.  x.  4,  and  the  identification  of  the  Messiah  with  the  "Angel  of  the  Lord" 
(Ex.  xiv.  19  ;  xxiii.  20,  etc.)  and  with  the  Pillar  of  Fire  in  Philo. 

13  "Whose  carcases  fell  in  the  wilderness"  (Heb.  iii.  17).  "  Yy\^.jPrirtcipatum. 
15  TT)TTjpT)»cev.     I  cannot  see  any  intentional  play  of  words  here,  though  it  is  in  contrast  with 

the  Tov?  /u,i)  TTjpT7o-ai'Tas.  ^      .    .« 

18  ^000?  is  the  word  used  by  Hesiod  of  the  imprisoned  Titans  [Theogon.  729).  AiSio?  is 
stronger  than  aicivios  in  the  conception  of  permanence,  yet,  as  we  see  here,  it  is  used  for  a 
limited  period,  viz.,  ei?  KpiaiP  fi.  rift',  and  in  Enoch,  to  which  Jude  is  referring,  we  find  "Bind 
them  for  sc.'cnty  iieneratio?is  under  the  earth  until  the  day  of  judgment."  (See  Enoch  xii. 
4,  xiv.  5,  XV.  3,  xxi.  10,  etc.).  I  do  not  think  it  needful  to  enter  into  curious  enquiries  how 
these  fallen  angels,  if  kept  in  chains,  dwell  in  the  air  and  go  about  tempting  men  (Eph.  li.  2, 
VI.  12J,  or  whether  the  tempting  spirits  are  a  different  class  from  the  fallen  angels.  See  Ex- 
cursus on  the  Hook  of  Enoch  and  Rabbinic  allusions  of  St.  Jude. 

17  Clearly  "  with  these  ang-els.'"  To  refer  it  to  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  as  though  it  were 
•'  Even  as  Admah  and  Zeboim  like  Sodom  and  Gomorrha,''  or  "  Even  as  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrha, in  like  manner  with  tliese  ungodly  Christians,"  is  to  introduce  impossible  explana- 
tions in  order  to  get  rid  of  St.  Jude's  plain  intimation  that  he,  like  the  Jews  of  his  day,  attrib- 
uted the  fall  of  the  angels  to  sensuality. 

i«  See  3  Mace.  ii.  5,  where  the  words  are  closely  parallel  ;  so,  too,  uTre'xeti',  unknown  to  the 
N.  T.,  is  found  in  2  M.icc.  iv.  48.  The  fire  of  retribution  which  destroyed  the  Cities  of  ihe 
Plain  burnt  but  for  a  day  ;  but  it  is  called  cconian,  or  eternal,  because  the  smoking  nun  of  it 
remains  (comp.  Wisd.  x.  7),  and  because  it  is  the  fire  of  God's  retributive  wrath  which  burns 
eternally  against  unrepented  sin.  ''  Atonian"  expresses  guatity,  not  duration.  Libanius 
uses  the  same  expression,  in  the  same  meaning,  of  the  fire  whicli  burnt  Troy. 


THE  EPISTLE   OF   ST.   JUDE.  151 

dreamings  defile  the  flesh, 1  and  set/ords^I/>^t  naught,  and  rail  at  glories.'*'  But 
Michael  the  archangel, =*  when  contending  with  the  devil,  he  disputed  about  the 
body  of  Moses,'  dared not^  /;/-/>/^'- against  him  ?i  rail i iig J udgtncfi t,^  but  said,  Tlie 
Lord  rebuke  thee  !  ^  But  these  rail  about  suck  7natttrs  as  they  knoiv  iiot,^  and 
such  things  as  they  understand'-'  Jiatural/y,  like  the  irrational  a?iifna!s,  in  tliese 
they  corntpt  themselves.io  Woe  to  them,  because  they  went  in  the  -way  ^Cain," 
and  poured  themselves  forth  in  the  error  of  Balaam  for  hire,  and  perished  in  the 
gainsaying  of  Korah.'^  These  are  the  sunken  reefs  ^'^  in  your  love  feasts, ^'^  batiguet- 
tin^  with  you  fearlessly, i^  pasturing  themselves ;  i»  -laaterless  clouds}''  swept 
hither  and  thither  hy  to inds,^^  aninmw  withering  ivcas,^'^  fruitless,  twice  dcad,''^" 

1  See  Is.  Ivi.  lo  (LXX.).  They  are  dreamers  because  they  take  the  substance  for  the 
shadow  and  the  shadow  for  the  substance,  and  their  dreamy  speculations  are  mixed  up  with 
immoral  practices. 

2  What  "  glories  "  are  meant  is  very  uncertain.  Wiesinger  and  Huther  explain  it  of  evil 
angels,  as  the  context  seems  to  imply.  There  is  no  trace  of  any  early  sect  of  heretics  (whether 
in  conduct,  as  those  spoken  of  by  St.  Jude,  or  in  teac/iiftg,  as  those  spoken  of  by  St.  Peter) 
railing  at  angels,  but  rather  the  reverse  (Col.  ii.  i8).  In  Enoch  vi.  4  we  read,  "  Ye  calumni- 
ate [God's]  greatness;"  and  in  xli.  i,  "The  sinners  who  denied  the  Lord  of  glory  ;"  and 
in  xlv.  2,  "  Who  deny  the  Name  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits  ;  "  and  in  i.  8,  "  The  spleudotir  of 
the  Godhead  shall  illuminate  them."  But  we  can  hardly  imagine  that  any  who  blasphemed 
God  would  be  suffered  to  remain  even  nominal  members  of  the  Christian  community.  Immo- 
rality, however  flagrant,  would  not  necessarily  exclude  them  from  Churches  of  which  the  dis- 
cipline was  lax  or  weak,  as  we  see  not  only  from  i  Cor.  v.  2,  but  also  from  the  warnings  which 
St.  Paul  finds  it  necessary  to  utter  to  even  faithful  communities.  We  see,  however,  from 
I  Cor.  xii.  3  that  in  the  wild  abuses  of  the  "Tongues"  some  even  dared  to  say  "Anathema 
be  Jesus  !  "     See  my  Life  of  St.  Paul^  ii.  56. 

3  "Archangel"  only  in  i  Thess.  iv.  16  (Dan.  xii.  i,  LXX.).  Michael— "  the  merciful, 
thepatid/it,  the  holy  Michael"  (Enoch  xl.  8)— only  in  Dan.  x.  13  ;  Rev.  xii.  7.  Origen  says 
that  the  allusion  is  taken  from  an  apocryphal  book  called  The  Ascension  of  Moses  {De  Frinc. 
iii.  2).  See  Ranipf,  Der  Brief  Juda.  In  Targ.  Jonath.  on  Deut.  xxxiv.  6  he  is  the  guardian 
of  the  grave  of  Moses. 

•*  The  Scriptural  account  of  the  death  of  Moses  is  very  simple,  but  the  Jews  had  many 
legends  about  it ;  especially  how  he — 

"  Died  of  the  kisses  of  the  lips  of  God." 
The  Angel  of  Death  dared  not  take  his  life,  and  so  God  drew  away  his  soul  with  a  kiss.     One 
legend   was   that   Satan   claimed   his   body  as   "lord  of  matter"   (u?  t^?  vArj?  Seo'Trd^oj'Ti) . 
Qicumenius  says  he  claimed  the  body  because  Moses  had  murdered  the  Egyptian. 

^  Why  ^^  dared  not?  "  The  entire  reasoning  shows  that  the  answer  is  "  IJecauseof  Satan's 
former  greatness."  It  can  hardly  be  because  the  language  of  stern  denunciation  should  never 
be  used,  seeing  that  Jude  himself  is  here  using  it  in  the  most  impassioned  form.  In  the  Catena 
is  a  strange  story  that  Satan,  seeing  Moses  at  the  Transfiguration,  taunted  Michael  with  the 
violation  of  God's  oath  that  Moses  should  not  enter  Canaan. 

®  Literally,  "dared  not  bring  against  him  a  judgment  of  railing." 

"^  The  very  words  used  by  the  Angel  to  the  Accuser  in  Zech.  iii.  1-3. 

6  This  shows  that  the  "railing"  of  these  impious  men  was  employed  against  spiritual  or 
celestial  beings  of  some  kind.     We  have  no  materials  for  entering  into  further  details. 

"  The  E.  V.  does  not  keep  up  the  distinction  between  oifiacrt  and  eTTia-Tovrai. 

1"  See  on  2  Pet.  ii.  12  supra,  pp.  201,  215. 

11  The  allusion  to  Cain  is  obviously  to  the  Cain  of  Jewish  hagadoth,  for  St.  Jude  can  hardly 
be  charging  these  teachers  with  murder  (see  Excursus). 

12  "Gainsaying,"  Heb.,  Meribah ;  Numb.  .\x.  13,  "the  water  of  strife"  (LXX.,  avri- 
Aoyia?). 

13  o-TTiXaSe?,  oi  v^oXoi  irerpat,  Etym.  Magn.     In  2  Pet.  ii.  13,  trrriXoi,  "spots." 
I''  Agapae  are  mentioned  under  that  name  in  this  place  alone. 

1^  Perhaps  <n;»'eva);^ou/u.6i'oi  refers  to  some  such  insolent  selfish  greed  as  that  of  the  rich 
Corinthians  (i  Cor.  xi.  21)  ;  d^6)3a)9,  not  fearing  either  the  rebuke  of  Presbyters  (who  are 
themselves  afraid  in  poor  communities  to  do  their  duty)  or  the  consequences  which  they  may 
bring  upon  themselves  (i  Cor.  xi.  30). 

i"  Ez.  xxxiv.  I,  "  Woe  to  the  shepherds  that  feed  themselves." 

*I  Prov.  XXV.  14  ;   "carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,"  Eph.  iv.  14. 

1^  Here  St.  Peter's  "  being  driven  by  a  hurricane  "  is  the  more  energetic  phrase.  Tiie 
metaphors  and  expressions  are  here  as  .i^schylean  as  St.  Peter's,  e.g.^  k-aa.^(>iC,ovTa  ;  cf. 
yEsch.  Ag.  1067. 

1"  "  Spatherbstliche."     Grot,  frugiperdae. 

20  "  Twice  dead,"  merely  a  proverbial  expression  for  "  utterly  dead,"  as  in  "  Bis  qui  cito," 
and  "  Pro  quo  bis  patiar  tnori^ 


152  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

deracinated  ;  i  wild  waves  of  the  sea,  foaming  out  their  own  shames  ;  2  wander- 
ing stars,  y<?r  wJiich  the  mirk  of  darkness  has  been  7- e  served  for  ever.  Yea,  and 
with  reference  to  them  ^  did  Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam,-*  prophesy,  saying, 
"  Lo,  the  Lord  came,  among  His  saintly  myriads,  to  execute  judgment  against 
all,  and  to  convict  all  the  impious  about  all  the  deeds  of  their  impiety  which 
they  impiously  did,  and  about  all  the  hard  things  which  they  spake  against  Him, 
impious  sinners  as  they  are.  These  are  murmurers,  blamers  of  their  destiny, ^^ 
walking  accordi?)^  to  their  lusts ;  and  their  mouth  utters //{//a^t't/ ///zV/^j-,  admir- 
ing persons/br  the  sake  of  advantage."' 

But  ye,  beloved,  remefnber  the  things  spoken  before  by  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  they  used  to  tell  you,  that  in  the  last  time  there  shall  be 
scoffers,  "walking  according  to  their  own  lusts  of  impieties.''  These  are  the  separ- 
atists,»  egotistical, »  not  having  the  spirit.  But  ye,  beloved,  building  up  your- 
selves on  your  most  holy  faith,  praying  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  keep  yourselves  in 
the  love  of  God,  awaiting  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto  life  eternal. 
And  some,  indeed,  try  to  convict  of  error  when  they  dispute  with  you  ;  1°  and  try 
to  save  some,  snatching  them  from  the  fire  ;  i'  and  pity  some  in  fear, 12  hating 
even  the  tunic  that  has  been  spotted ^^  by  ihe.  flesh. 

Now  to  Him  that  is  able  to  guard  you  1*  unstumbling,  and  to  set  you  before 

1  eiepi^(!i9evTa.     I  take  the  unique  equivalent  from  Siiakespeare — 

"  Rend  and  deracinate 
The  unity  and  wedded  calm  of  states." 

2  Is.  Ivii.  20.  3  Or,  "to  these  also"  (as  well  as  to  others). 

*  We  should  say  the  sixth,  but  the  Jews  counted  inclusively.  The  only  object  iu  men- 
tioning this  is  the  mystic  significance  of  the  number  seven.  Thus  the  Jews  spoke  of  Moses  as 
the  seventh  from  Abraham  ;  of  Phinehasas  the  seventh  from  Jacob,  etc.  In  Enoch  xii.-xvi. 
the  prophet  is  sent  on  a  mission  to  the  Fallen  Augels.  They  t'ell  from  Heaven  to  earth,  he  was 
exalted  from  earth  to  Heaven  (Iren.  Haer.  iv.  2,  16).     See  Excursus,  "The  Book  of  Enoch." 

5  ^e/i.i/(t'jutotpoi,  "blamers  of  their  own  lot."  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  i.  33,  Kai  TraAt;'  fjp^avTO 
ixeftxf/iixoipeiv,  "and  they  began  again  to  blame  their  lot."  Theophrastiis,  £th.  Char,  xvii., 
Ti-epi  /u.eju.i//ijiiotpia5,  "discontent  foUowing  in  the  wake  of  self-indulgence." 

®  ^au^a^eiv  npoaiaTra,  a  Hebrew  phrase  :  comp.  irpocr(oiTo\riTTTr}';,  Acts  x.  34.  In  Gen.  xix. 
21,  "  Lo  !  I  have  accepted  thee,"  the  LXX.  render  idov,  eOavixacra.  <xov  to  irpoaoinov.  The 
best  comment  is  in  the  words  of  Shakespeare — 

"And  not  a  ma.n  for  being  simply  man 

Hath  any  honour,  but  honour  for  those  honours 
Which  are  without  him.  as  place,  riches,  favour, 
Prizes  of  accident  as  oft  as  merit." 
And  as  to  the  cause  which  St.  Jude  assigns  for  this  partiality — 

"  Plate  sin  nvithgold 
_    And  the  strong  lance  of  justice  hurtless  breaks." 

'  *E/iTai/cTai,  Is.  iii.  4  (LXX.).  Warnings  against  such  apostates,  blasphemers,  and  un- 
godly men  must  have  occurred  often  in  the  teachings  of  the  Apostles  (See  Acts  xx.  29;  i,  2 
Thess.  ;  Col.  i.  ii.  ;  Tim.  ;  Tit. ;  Rev.,  passim).  It  seems  a  most  idle  argument  to  refer  this 
prophecy  to  2  Pet.  iii.  i,  2,  and  thence  to  assume  the  priority  of  that  Epistle  ! 

8  The  word  is  only  found  in  Arist.  Polit.  iv.  4,  §  13.  Separatists=Pharisees.  But  here 
the  Pharisaism  is  Antinoniian  and  apostate  (Hooker,  Serial,  v.  11). 

»  i^yx'-'fos  "egotistical."  If  this  rendering  be  not  accepted,  there  is  nothing  for  it  but  to 
naturalise  the  word  '" psychicaV  as  a  translation  of  this  word.  It  expresses  those  who  live  in 
accordance  with  the  mere  natural  views  of  a  limited  and  selfish  life.  They  are  not  necessarily 
"carnal" — i.e..,  devoted  to  the  basest  fleshly  impulses  (crap/ciKot) — nor  have  they  become 
"spiritual"  (7rf€v/*aTi/coi).  They  Jive  the  common  life  of  men  in  simple  worldliness,  and  the 
slightly  expanded  egotism  of  domestic  selfishness. 

JO  Read  for  eAcare  or  eAeeiTC  (which  spoil  the  continuity  of  the  structure),  eKiyxere,  A,  C, 
which  can  only  be  fully  rendered  by  "try  to  convict  of  error  ;  "  SiaKpLVOfxevov^,  J^,  A,  B,  C, 
see  ver.  9  for  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Elsewhere  it  means  "  doubling  "  (Acts  x.  20,  Ja.  i. 
6,  etc.). 

"  Zech.  iii.  2,  "  Is  not  this  a  brand  plucked  from  the  burning?"     (.Am.  iv.  i.) 

12  Z^eg.,  0V5  Se  eAeare  e^  <|)6^w,  Ji{,  A.  15.  The  omissioii  of  this  clause  by  the  E.  V.  (follow- 
ing K,  L)  spoils  the  triple  structure.  The  frst  class  of  these  impious  men  is  to  be  refuted  in 
argument ;  the  sccottd  to  be  saved  by  vigorous  personal  intluence  and  exertion  ;  the  ilurd, 
which  is  the  most  obstinate  and  degraded  class,  shun,  for  fear  they  should  defile  and  corrupt 
you  :  yet  pity  them  in  Christian  love.  ^ 

'3  eflTTTiAcoju.eVoi'  (comp.  Rev.  iii.  4.  ovk   e}x6\vvav  ra  i/oioTta  avrlav).  " 

'■•  auTou?  for  11^05  is  the  difficilior  lectio,  but  as  it  is  only  found  in  A,  it  may  be  a  mere 
blip.     The  doxology  evidently  recalls  Rom.  .\vi.  ^5. 


tiil:  epistle  of  st.  jude.  153 

His  glory  blameless  in  exultation,  to  the  only  God  >  our  Saviour  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  be  glory,  vuijesty,  might,  and  poiucr  before  all  the  aeon,'-  and 
noxj,  and  to  all  the  i.'cons.     Amen. 

I.  The  style  of  the  Greek — which  was  no  doubt  the 
language  in  which  this  letter  w^as  originally  written — is  ex- 
actly such  as  we  should  expect  from  one  to  whom  Greek 
was  not  so  familiar  as  his  native  Aramaic,  but  who  still 
writes  with  a  passion  which  gives  force  and  eloquence  to  his 
words.  It  is  the  language  of  an  Oriental  who  knows 
Greek,  partly  by  reading  and  partly  by  having  moved 
among  Hellenistic  communities,  but  whose  vocabulary  is  far 
richer  and  more  powerful  than  his  grammar.'  The  words 
are  Greek  words,  and  sometimes  rare,  forcible,  and  poetic  ; 
but  the  whole  colouring  and  tone  of  thought  recall  the 
manner  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  in  whose  writings  St.  Jude 
must  have  been  trained  during  his  youth  in  the  humble  and 
faithful  house  of  Joseph  of  Nazareth. 

The  most  remarkable  trace  of  this  Hebraic  structure  is 
shown  in  the  extraordinary  fondness  of  the  writer  for  triple 
arrmigemetits.  In  pausing  to  tell  us  that  Enoch  was  the 
seventh  from  Adam  he  at  once  shows  his  interest  in  sacred 
numbers,  and  throughout  his  Epistle  he  has  scarcely  omitted 
a  single  opportunity  of  throwing  his  statements  into  groups 
of  three.  Thus  those  whom  he  addresses  are  sanctified,  kept, 
elect,*  and  he  wishes  them  mercy,  love,  peace  ; '"  the  instances 
of  divine  retribution  are  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  tlie 
fallen  angels,  and  the  cities  of  the  plain  ;  ^  the  dreamers 
whom  he  denounces  are  corrupt,  rebellious,  and  railing;' 
they  have  walked  in  the  way  of  Cain,  Balaam,  and  Korah  ;* 
they  are  murmurers,  discontented,  self-willed  ;  they  are 
boastful,  partial,  greedy  of  gain  ;  -^  they  are  separatists, 
egotistic,  unspiritual.'"  Lastly,  they  are  to  be  dealt  with  in 
three  classes,  of  which  one  class  is  to  be  refuted  in  disputa- 
tion, another  saved  by  effort,  and  the  third  pitied  with  de- 
testation of  their  sins.''     But  saints  are  to  pray  in  the  spirit, 


1  The  word  "wise,"  omitted  in  X>  A,  B,  C,  etc.,  is  probably  interpolated  from  Rom.  xvi.  27. 

-  I.e.,  "as  it  was  in  the  beginning." 

3  The  nnniber  of  the  haj>ax  legome>/a  is  remarkable,  and  some  of  them  are  full  of  pic- 
turesqnencss  and  force — e.g:,  enay(avi(^ecr9aL.  napeicreSva-ai;  eK-rropi'evaaaai,  OTriato  aapKO?, 
UTre'xovcrai,  <f>v(TiK(ii^,  e^exvOr)(yav,  aydivai<;,  a-m\d6e<;,  (/)(?tj'077iopn/a,  £Va(f)pi^orTa,  n-Aai/TjTai, 
yoyyvcnai.  fxenxfjiixoLpoi.,  Trpocrwira.  htopi^ovTe?.  dirTaicTov;.  np'o  n-a»'TOS  rou  oiwvos,  besides 
others  whicli  are  only  found  here  and  in  2  Peter,  or  are  exceedingly  rare  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  semipoetic  colouring  of  these  words  is  a  phenomenon  often  observable  in  writers  who  are 
using  a  foreign  language.  ''The  diction,"  says  Davidson,  "is  round  and  full,  not  neat  or 
easy,  but  rather  harsh.  It  shows  one  acquainted  with  Greek,  yet  unable  to  express  his  ideas 
in  it  with  ease." — Ivtroductioti  to  New  Testametit,  i.  450. 

*  Vcr.  I.  ^-  Ver.  2.  «  Vers.  5-7.  ''  Ver.  S. 

^  Ver.  u.  •       "  Vcr.  16.  .    i"  Ver.  19.  >»  Vers.  .J2,  23. 


154  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

keep  themselves  in  the  love  of  God,  and  await  the  mercy 
of  Christ  ; '  and  glory  is  ascribed  to  God  before  the  past,  in 
the  present,  and  unto  the  farthest  future.^ 

Some  of  these  triplets — those,  for  instance,  in  the  twen- 
ty-third and  last  verses — are  missed,  in  consequence  of  the 
adoption  by  the  English  Version  of  inferior  readings  ;  but 
as  regards  the  rest,  even  if  we  might  otherwise  suppose  that 
some  of  them  were  accidental,  the  recurrence  of  this  ar- 
rangement no  less  than  eleven  times  in  twenty-five  verses  is 
obviously  intentional,  or,  at  any  rate,  characteristic  of  the 
writer's  mode  of  thought.  It  could  not  be  paralleled  from 
any  other  passage  of  Scripture  of  equal  length.^  It  is  un- 
like anything  which  we  should  find  in  classic  Greek,  and 
accords  with  the  professed  authorship  b}^  indicating  the 
Hebraic  tinge  of  the  writer's  mind.  We  shall  notice  here- 
after that  a  similar  antithetic  balance  and  rhythmic  flow  is 
characteristic  of  the  style  of  St.  John.  In  both  of  these 
sacred  writers  it  is  the  result  of  their  Semitic  origin  and 
Jewish  education. 

2.  But  a  far  more  remarkable  characteristic  of  the  writer 
is  his  fondness  for  alluding  to  remote  and  unrecorded  inci- 
dents of  Jewish  tradition.  In  the  brief  space  of  nine  verses 
he  introduces  current  Rabbinic  views  in  a  manner  to  which, 
in  the  New  Testament,  there  is  scarcely  a  parallel.  He  ac- 
cepts, for  instance,  the  strange  notion  respecting  the  fall 
and  fate  of  the  angels  through  fleshly  lusts.  Alone  of  the 
New  Testament  writers,  except  St.  John  in  the  Apocalypse, 
he  mentions  and  names  an  Archangel.''  He  introduces,  prob- 
ably from  the  apocryphal  Asce)ision  of  Moses^^  a  personal 
contention  between  this  Archangel  and  the  Devil  about  the 
body  of  Moses,  to  which  there  is  not  in  Scripture  the  re- 
motest allusion."  He  tells  us  that  Michael  "  did  not  dare  " 
to  bring  a  *' judgment  of  railing  "  against  the  Evil  Spirit. 
He  refers  to  Cain  in  a  manner  which  seems  to  imply  some- 
thing more  than  the  murder  of  Abel.  He  makes  a  quota- 
tion, which  has  since  been  discovered  in  a  book  confessedly 

»  Ver.  20.  2  Ver.  25. 

'  There  is  something  which  partially  resembles  it  in  the  half-rhythmic  triplets  of  Eph. 
V.  14. 

<  III  the  Apocryphal  books  and  the  Talmud  we  read  of  seven  Archangels — Michael,  Gabriel, 
Raphael.  Uriel,  Scalihiel,  Jeremeel,  and  Sammael. 

*  'AfaArjilds  Maju<7-«'u»s.  See  Hilgenfeld,  Mess.  Jud.  Ixxii.  He  may,  however,  be  merely 
introducing  tlic  Jewish  legend  in  his  own  way.     (See  Lieffert  in  Herzog.  R,  Knc,  s.  v.) 

*  Schottgen,  Meuschen,  and  others  adduce  in  exact  parallel  to  this  that  in  the  Jalkut 
Reubcni  (f.  43.  3)  there  is  a  contest  i:)etween  Michael  and  Satan  about  Isaac  and  the  ram.  In 
Hil^enfcld's  Mcssins  yudaeoyuiiu  p.  461,  vanous  fragments  are  quoted  of  the  Ascension  of 
Moses,  from  which  the  reference  was  taken.  Orig,  De  PrinciJ>.  iii.  2,  §  i  ;  see,  too,  (Ecu- 
menius  ad  li>c.  ;  Cramer's  Cutenu,  p.  160.)  • 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.   JUDE.  1 55 

apocryphal.^  How  are  we  to  explain  these  peculiarities  ? 
Do  they  need  any  apologetic  treatment  ? 

There  are  two  ways  of  treating  them,  which  I  shall  con- 
tent myself  with  stating,  leaving  every  reader  of  unbiassed 
mind  and  fearless  sincerity  to  choose  between  them. 

i.  There  are  many  writers  who  endeavour  by  various  ex- 
planations to  minimise  whatever  contradicts  their  theories 
of ''verbal  dictation,"  and  who  insist  that  every  allusion 
which  cannot  be  explained  out  of  the  Old  Testament  must 
be  accepted  as  a  literal  fact  divinely  revealed  to  St.  Jude 
himself.  It  would,  indeed,  be  a  matter  of  no  small  diffi- 
culty to  accept  the  Jewish  legend  that  angels  fell  from  their 
heavenly  dignity  by  sensual  impurities  with  mortal  women. 
Flence  these  writers  interpret  the  "  sons  of  God  "  in  Gen. 
vi.  2  to  mean  men  of  the  righteous  race,  and  they  suppose 
that  the  "  giants  "  in  that  passage  were  the  offspring  of  inter- 
marriages between  the  race  of  Seth  and  the  race  of  Cain.'^ 
They  therefore  explain  St.  Jude's  allusion  as  a  reference  to 
the  expulsion  of  Satan's  angels  from  Heaven  because  of 
their  revolt, — a  notion  very  familiar  to  us  from  Milton's 
Epic,  but  of  which  there  are  in  Scripture  only  the  dimmest 
and  most  disputable  traces.  They  take  it  as  a  divinely  re- 
vealed fact  that  the  body  of  Moses  was  really  an  object  of 
personal  contention  between  the  Archangel  Michael  and 
the  Devil,  and  they  boldly  conjecture  that  Satan  desired  to 
seize  the  body  that  he  might  induce  the  Jews  to  treat  it  as 
a  relic  to  be  worshipped.^  Lastly,  although  the  prophecy 
attributed  to  Enoch  really  does  occur  in  almost  the  same 
words  in  the  apocryphal  book  of  that  name — and  although 
it  is  certain  that  the  book  in  whole  or  in  part  existed  in  St. 
Jude's  time — they  refuse  to  admit  that  St.  Jude  could  have 
used  a  quotation  from  a  book  confessedly  apocryphal,  but 
assume  either  that  he  received  this  particular  passage  ''by 
independent  revelation  ;'"*  or  that  it  was  a  genuine  proph- 
ecy of  the  antediluvian  prophet  correctly  handed  down  by 
tradition  for  two  thousand  five  hundred  years  ;  ^  or,  lastly, 
that  the  writer  or  interpreter  of  the  book  of  Enoch  bor- 
rowed it  from  St.  Jude,  and  not  St.  Jude  from  liim. 

1  Jude  14. 

2  As  was  done  even  by  St.  Augustine.     See,  too,  Milton,  Paradise  Lost,  xii.  580,  seq. 

3  Philippi  supposes  that  the  fact  was  revealed  to  the  disciples,  to  account  for  the  appear- 
ance of  Moses  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration.     Of  what  use  are  such  conjectures? 

''  "  Apostolum  Henochi  verba  ex  singulari  divina  revelatione  habuisse." — Pfciffer,  Decas, 
iv.  §  8. 

*  See  "Knoch  Rcstitutus  :  An  attempt  to  .separate  from  the  Books  of  Enoch  the  book 
quoted  by  St.  Jude,"  by  Rev.  E.  Murray,  1838. 


156  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

ii.  To  others  the  rare  phenomena  of  the  Epistle  present 
no  difficulty  which  requires  such  a  congeries  of  harsh  sup- 
positions— suppositions  which,  in  their  opinion,  need  no 
refutation,  because  they  rest  on  no  basis.  They  do  not 
think  it  necessary  to  support  the  authority  of  this  certainly 
canonical,  but  as  certainly  non-apostolic,  writer  by  hypoth- 
eses so  extrarordinay.  They  know  that  at  this  epoch  Apo- 
cryphal literature  was  widely  current  among  the  Jews,  and 
that  a  dense  multitude  of  Rabbinic  legends  had  sprung  up 
around  their  early  literature  and  history.  Many  of  these 
are  of  an  absurd  and  objectionable  character,  and  they  see 
a  superintending  guidance  in  the  wisdom  which  excludes  all 
trace  of  these  from  the  sacred  page.  Every  Jewish  Chris- 
tian, trained  in  the  lore  of  Palestine,  would  be  familiar  with 
many  such  Hagadoth  ;  and  it  was  perfectly  natural  that  in 
waiting  to  his  countrymen  St.  Jude  should  refer  to  such  be- 
liefs by  way  of  passing  illustration,  just  as  St.  Paul  refers  to 
the  traditional  names  of  the  Egyptian  magicians/  and  to 
the  legend  of  the  wandering  rock.^ 

St.  Jude's  quotation  from  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch^ 
no  more  stamps  the  book  of  Enoch,  or  the  passage  quoted 
from  it,  as  a  Divine  revelation  than  do  St.  James's  references 
to  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon^  or  St.  Paul's  quotations  from 
Epimenides,  Aratus,  or  Menander.  From  those  pagan 
writers,  and  even  from  the  last — deeply  dyed  as  he  was  with 
the  vicious  morality  of  a  decadent  age — St.  Paul  quotes 
without  hesitation  a  religious  truth,  or  moral  aphorism,  or 
historical  allusion  which  happens  to  illustrate  his  general 
purpose.  It  is  in  no  wise  strange  that  St.  Jude  should  make 
analogous  use  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Ascension  of 
Moses,  which  were  current  among  the  Hebraists  whom  he 
was  addressing,  and  whose  views  he  shared.  Some  have 
supposed  that  he  used  them  because  they  were  accepted  by 
those  against  whom  he  is  writing,  and  because  any  con- 
sideration derived  from  these  would  have  the  force  of  an 
argumentum  ad  hominem.  It  seems  to  be  a  more  natural  sup- 
position that  he  alluded  to  current  conceptions  for  a  par- 
ticular object,  just  as  all  writers  do  in  all  ages,  without 
entering  into  any  discussion  as  to  their  literal  truth. 

1  2  rim.  iii.  8.  2  j  Cor.  x.  4.     See  Life  and  Work  0/ St.  Paul,  i.  48,  638. 

3  The  direct  (jiiotation  is  in  Jude  14,  is,  but  there  are  several  other  traces  of  St.  Jude's  ac- 
quaintance with  the  bdok  :  for  instance,  the  pseudo-Enoch,  no  less  than  Jude,  refers  to 
'"wandering  stars"  (xviii.  14,  16;  xxi.  3),  and  comes  near  the  very  remarkable  expression 
"chains  of  darkness"  (Jude  6;  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  5)  ;  "Kind  Az;izel  .  .  .  cast  him  into  darkness" 
(xii.  5-7}  ;  "Fetters  of  iron  without  weight"  (liii.  3).  Hofmann  and  Philippi  try  to  prove 
that  the  l^nok  of  Enoch  was  written  by  a  Jewish  Christian.  Locke,  Ewald,  Weiszacker,  Dill- 
ir.ann,  Kostlin,  etc.,  only  admit  later  interpolations  of  a  Jewish  book. 


THE   EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JUDE.  1 5/ 

Such  are  the  conflicting  opinions  of  different  commen- 
tators. They  affect  questions  which  lie  in  that  neutral 
region  of  uncertainty  where  all  true  Christians  should  re- 
spect their  common  freedom.  They  touch  on  questions  of 
literature  and  criticism.  They  hinge  upon  delinitions  of  in- 
spiration which  the  Scriptures  themselves  do  not  furnish, 
and  which  the  Church  has  in  consequence  withheld.  They 
may  be  safely  left  to  the  influence  of  time,  and  the  widen- 
ing thoughts  of  mankind.  All  that  we  need  say  respect- 
ing them  is,  "Let  there  be  in  things  necessary  unity;  in 
things  doubtful  liberty  ;  in  all  things  charity." 

iii.  If  we  ask,  lastly,  who  were  the  evil-doers  against 
whom  the  parallel  denunciations  of  St.  Jude  and  the  Sec- 
ond Epistle  of  St.  Peter  were  hurled — St.  Jude  exposing 
their  unnatural  wickedness  and  blaspheming  presumption, 
the  Second  Epistle  dwelling  mainly  on  their  corrupting 
influence  and  specific  faithlessness — the  answer  is  that 
neither  of  the  sacred  writers  is  dealing  with  a  definite 
sect,  but  that  the  errors  and  malpractices  which  they  de- 
nounce afterwards  came  to  a  head  in  the  mysteries  of  in- 
iquity which  characterised  many  sects.  These  errors  con- 
tained the  germ  of  the  systems  which  were  subsequently 
known  as  Antinomian  Gnosticism.  Very  shortly  after  the 
period  with  which  we  are  dealing,  the  Nicolaitans  drew 
on  themselves  the  indignant  anathemas  of  St.  John.  The 
second  century  saw  the  rise  of  other  defilers  of  the  Chris- 
tian name  and  profession.  Such  were  the  Ophites,  who 
lauded  the  Serpent  of  Paradise  as  their  benefactor;'  the 
blasphemous  Caini'tes,  who  made  their  heroes  out  of  all 
the  vilest  characters  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  ; " 
the  Carpocratians,  who  taught  licentious  communism;^ 
the  Antitactae,  who  regarded  it  as  a  duty  to  the  Supreme 
God  to  violate  all  the  commandments,  on  the  ground  that 
they  had  been  promulgated  by  His  enemy  the  Demiurgus;* 
the  Adamites,  who  taught  men  to  live  like  brutes.^  None 
of  these  sects  as  yet  existed  as  sects,  but  in  the  wild  opin- 
ions attributed  to  Nicolas  and  Cerinthus  we  see  the 
seething  elements  of  reckless  speculation  which  sprang 
from  a  common  fountain,  but  under  the  subsequent  name 
of  Gnosticism  split  into  the  two  opposite  streams  of  a 
reckless  immorality  and  an  extra v^agant  asceticism.'^ 

'  Iren.  Haer.  i.  30,  §  5.  ^  Epiphan.  Haer,  xxxviii.  2. 

3  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  2  ;  Thcodoret,  Haer.  i.  6. 

*  Clem.  Alex.  Strovt.  iii.  4.  6  Epiphan.  finer.  Iii.  ^ 

'  ri  yap  tol  a5ia(/)dpw?  ^rjif  SiSa.<TKOV<riv  jj  to  inipTOvov  ayovaai  eyKpaTnav  (Clem.  Alex. 
Strom,  iii.  5,  §  40). 


)300&  HM. 


APOLLOS    AND     ALEXANDRIAN     CHRISTIANITY 
AND   THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

JUDAISM,  THE  SEPTUAGINT,  AND  ALEXANDRIAN  INFLUENCES. 

"Alexandria  .  .  .  vertex  omnium  civitatum." 

Arnin.  Mar  cell.  xxii.  i6. 

The  Christian  Faith  does  not  centre  in  a  Dogma,  or  in  a 
Book,  but  in  a  Person,  and  this  is  the  cause  and  pledge  of 
its  essential  unity.  Its  one  answer  to  all  who,  with  the  Phi- 
lippian  jailer,  ask,  "  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  "  is 
the  answer  of  Paul  and  Silas,  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  tliy  house."  That  truth 
was  clearly  seen  by  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
when  he  began  his  magnificent  sketch  of  Christian  tlieologv 
with  the  pregnant  words,  ''God,  Who  fragmentarily  and 
multifariously  of  old  spake  to  our  fathers  by  the  Prophets, 
at  the  end  of  these  days  spake  unto  us  by  His  Son." 

But  unity  does  not  exclude  diversity — nay,  more,  without 
diversity  tliere  can  be  no  true  and  perfect  unity.  Where 
there  is  no  unity  there  is  distraction,  but  where  there  is  no 
diversity  there  is  death.  Where  the  spirits  of  the  prophets 
are  not  subject  to  the  prophets — where  every  man  is  con- 
scious only  of  his  own  invisible  consecration — where,  as  in 
the  Church  of  Corinth,  every  one  in  his  fanatical  egotism  is 
anxious  to  shout  down  the  truths  revealed  to  others,  that  he 
may  absorb  the  attention  of  all  by  his  own  "tongue,"  how- 
ever barbarous,  however  dissonant,  however  unintelHgiblc 
— where  it  is  ignored  that  amid  the  div^ersities  of  gifts  and 
ministrations  there  is  yet  the  translucent  energy  of  one  and 
the  same  Spirit — tJici-e  is  confusion,  and  railing,  and  irrcHg- 
ious  strife.  And  where,  on  the  other  hand,  all  lips  mechan- 
ically repeat  the  same  shibboleth  for  centuries  after  its  sig- 


JUDAISM   AND    THE   SEPTUAGINT.  1 59 

nificance  has  been  worn  away— where  the  dulness  of  a  self- 
styled  "  orthodoxy  "  lias  obliterated  the  many  hues  of  the 
wisdom  of  God — where  enquiry  is  crushed  under  the  heel 
of  authority— where,  in  fact,  there  can  be  710  independent 
enquiry  because  all  conclusions  are  dictated  beforehand  by 
the  tyranny  of  an  unsurped  infallibility — there  is  uniformity 
indeed,  but  therewith  corruption  and  decay.  When  it  is 
persecution  to  alter  the  perspective  of  a  doctrine,  and  death 
to  leave  the  cart-rut  of  a  system — when  they  who  question 
the  misinterpretations  of  Scripture  which  have  been  pressed 
into  the  service  of  popular  errors,  must  face  the  anger  of 
startled  ignorance — when  there  is  no  life  left  save  the  spark 
which  glows  in  the  ashes  of  the  Martyr,  or  the  lamp  which 
flickers  in  the  Reformer's  cell — then  the  caste  Avhich  has 
seized  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  may  boast  indeed 
of  unity,  but  it  is  the  unity  produced  by  selfishness  in  the 
few,  and  serfdom  in  the  many.  The  unity  so  secured  is  but 
the  stagnancy  of  the  unrippled  water,  the  monotony  of  the 
barren  sands.  It  is  the  unity  of  the  dead  plain,  "where 
every  molehill  is  a  mountain,  and  every  thistle  a  forest  tree." 
In  this  latter  condition  there  is  a  deadlier  peril  than  in  the 
former.  Even  discords  can  be  inwrought  into  the  vast  se- 
quences of  some  mighty  harmony,  but  what  great  music  can 
be  achieved  with  but  a  single  note  ?  Unbroken  unanimity 
may  be  the  boast  of  a  deadening  Buddhism,  a  withered 
Confucianism,  a  mechanical  Islam  ;  it  cannot  exist  in  a  free 
and  living  Christianity.  If  it  exist  at  all,  it  can  only  be  as 
a  uniformity  of  indifference  and  ignorance'— a  uniformity  of 
winter  and  of  night.  The  uniformity  of  the  noonday  is  only 
for  the  Infinite.  For  finite  beings,  if  there  be  any  light  at 
all,  there  must  be  the  colours  of  th";  sunset,  and  the  seven- 
fold lustre  of  the  rainbow,  which  is  only  seen  when  there  is 
rain  as  well  as  sun. 

"  Only  the  prism's  obstruction  shews  aright 
The  secret  of  a  sunbeam,  breaks  its  light 
Into  the  jewelled  bow  from  blankest  white  ; 
So  may  a  glory  from  defect  arise."  ' 

Hence,  as  we  have  seen  again  and  again  in  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  truth  which  they  reveal  comes  to  us 
tinged  with  the  individuality  of  the  writers.  It  comes  to  us 
unchanged,  indeed,  in  its  essence,  because  that  essence  is  un- 
changeable, but  still  reflected  and  refracted  by  the  medium 
through  which  it  has  inevitably  passed.  The  Light  of  Heaven, 

1  Browning. 


l6o  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

like  the  light  of  day,  can  only  reach  us  through  earthly 
media.  The  sunlight — lest  it  should  blind  us  with  its  bright- 
ness— must  pass  through  the  atmosphere  with  its  layers  of 
vapour  visible  and  invisible  ;  it  must  glance  from  a  myriad 
surfaces  ;  it  must  fire  the  mountain  tops  and  blaze  upon 
the  sea,  and  be  coloured  by  the  evening  clouds.  And  yet 
wherever  it  falls,  however  it  is  modified,  it  is  always  benifi- 
cent — and  even  more  beneficent  from  the  changes  to  which 
it  is  subjected — because  it  is  the  sunlight  still.  And  in  the 
same  way,  to  suit  our  finite  capacities,  the  Light  of  Heaven 
also  must  pass  through  human  subjectivities.  It  must  dis- 
play blessed  varieties  of  hue,  and  graduated  intensities  of 
radiance,  according  as  it  comes  to  us  through  the  mind  of  a 
Moses  or  of  an  Isaiah,  of  a  St.  James  or  a  St.  Paul.  But  of 
itself  it  can  never  lead  astray,  because  it  is  light  from  Heaven. 
The  mystic  light  which,  as  Jewish  legend  tells  us,  gleamed 
over  the  oracular  gems  of  Aaron's  breastplate,  was  ardent 
now  with  the  azure  of  the  sapphire,  now  with  the  deep  green 
of  the  emerald,  now  with  the  softer  lustre  of  the  amethyst. 
Even  so  does  the  light  of  inspiration  alternately  blaze  or 
glow  in  the  fiery  heart  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  in  the 
loving  tenderness  of  St.  John  the  Divine,  in  the  stern  and 
lofty  morality  of  St.  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord. 

Nor  is  it  otherwise  with  the  truths  proclaimed  by  different 
communities.  Churches,  too,  have  their  modifying  subjec- 
tivity. The  Spirit  of  God  that  spake  of  old  in  the  prophets 
is  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  speaks  in  His  prophets  now. 
"  Vox  quidem  dissbni^  sed  uni  relligio."  The  voices  are  many, 
the  utterance  is  one.  Churches  differ  as  individuals  differ. 
There  were  differences  of  view,  differences  of  perspective, 
differences  of  characteristic  expression  in  the  Churches  of 
Africa  and  of  Palestine,  in  the  schools  of  Alexandria  and 
Antioch,  in  the  Churches  of  the  East  and  of  the  West.  Chris- 
tianity in  all  Churchcis  was,  and  ever  must  be,  in  its  essence 
Catholic — one  and  indivisible  ;  yet  Christians  shared  in  all 
minor  matters  the  varying  views  of  the  bodies  to  which  they 
belonged.  There  is  but  one  flock  of  Christ,  but  there  are 
m^iny  folds.  The  Christians  of  Egypt  were  not  absolutely 
identical  in  the  colour  of  their  theology  with  those  of  Eph- 
esus,  nor  the  Christians  of  Ephesus  with  those  of  Rome. 

Uniquely  great  and  memorable  was  the  work  of  the 
Church  of  Alexandria.  The  Christian  School  of  Alexan- 
dria was  deeply  influenced  by  the  views  and  traditions  of 
the  Jewish  schools  from  which  it  sprang.     To  those  schools 


ALEXANDRIAN    INFLUENCES.  l6l 

it  was  affiliated  by  an  unbroken  course  of  historical  events. 
I  will  endeavour,  therefore,  to  furnish  here  a  swift  and 
summary  view  of  the  origin  .and  character  of  Alexandrian 
Christianity,  which  may  at  least  serve  to  render  more  dis- 
tinct the  special  character  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


The  Jews,  tenaciously  as  they  have  always  clung  to  their 
national  peculiarities,  have  yet  shown  a  remarkable  power 
of  adapting  themselves,  within  certain  limits,  to  the  civili- 
sation and  tone  of  thought  of  the  age  and  country  in  which 
their  lot  has  been  cast.  But  there  has  never  been  any 
modification  of  Judaism  so  remarkable  as  that  which  arose 
in  Alexandria  when  Jewish  religion  first  came  into  contact 
with  Greek  philosophy.  Thus  did  the  House  of  Bondage 
of  their  fathers  become  for  the  later  Jews  a  School  of 
Wisdom.  ^ 

If  the  bringing  of  East  and  West  into  closer  contact  with 
each  other  was  one  of  the  main  works  of  Alexander  the 
^Great,  the  deepest  mark  which  he  left  on  the  history  of  the 
world  was  his  founding  of  Alexandria.  Jewish  Hellenism 
■ — the  utterance  of  Oriental  thought  in  Greek  language, 
and  the  interchange  of  Asiatic  and  Greek  conceptions — was 
the  result  of  Alexander's  conquests,  and  of  the  policy 
which  directed  them  ;  and  this  fusion  went  on  more  rapidly 
in  Alexandria  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  Macedonian 
Empire. 

Alexandria  was  a  city  which  had  the  most  splendid  ad- 
vantages. The  fleets  of  Asia  and  Europe  met  in  a  com- 
modious harbour,  whose  entrance  was  lighted  by  the  Pharos, 
which  has  given  its  name  to  every  lighthouse  in  the  world.' 
Unlike  the  majority  of  ancient  cities,  it  was  built  upon  a 
regular  plan,  and  was  magnificently  adorned  with  public 
buildings  and  works  of  art.  Its  climate  was  healthy  ;  it  was 
well  supplied  with  pure  water  by  noble  aqueducts  ;  its  mar- 
ket was  a  meeting-place  for  traffickers  from  every  region  of 
the  civilised  globe.  The  mixture  of  various  nationalities  in 
an  important  city  always  tends  to  quicken  the  thoughts  of 
men.  Oriental  theosophy,  Gi'eek  culture,  philosophic  specu- 
lations, found  tlieir  way  among  the  citizens  as  surely  as  the 
sailors  of  the  ships  which  came  to  anchor  behind  the  Piia- 
ros.     Even-Theodorus   the   Atheist  was  welcomed    at  the 


'  Gratz    Gesih.  d.  Juden,  iii.  26.  =  MeyicTTOi'  e^iTropeioi'  rr\<i  olKOvtuivifi  (Strabo). 

Jl 


1 62  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Court  of  the  Ptolemies.'  Alexandria  seethed  with  intellec- 
tual excitement.'  There  was  an  incessant  conflict  and 
rivalry  between  the  Egyptian,  Greek,  and  Jewish  elements 
of  the  populace,  which  in  later  times  could  barely  be  kept 
in  order  by  the  rough  authority  of  Roman  Pro-consuls.  But 
besides  the  natural  sharpening  of  the  intellect  which  re- 
suited  from  the  contact  of  opposite  religions,  the  Ptolemies 
had  made  it  their  object  to  be  patrons  of  literature,  and  the 
royal  library  of  Alexandria  furnished  an  unique  opportunity 
for  earnest  students. 

A  circumstance  which  exercised  no  small  influence  over 
the  development  of  Alexandria  was  the  equality  of  civil 
rights  which  the  Jews  had  from  the  first  enjoyed.  Alexan- 
der the  Great  had  been  most  favourably  impressed  by  his 
interview  with  the  high-priest  Jaddua.^  Whatever  may  be 
thought  of  the  legendary  details  of  that  interview,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  he  had  spared  the  Jews  from  any  exactions,  and 
had  accorded  to  them  exceptional  privileges.  His  policy 
was  followed  by  the  astute  dynasty  of  the  Lagidae,  the  fam- 
ous Ptolemies  who  ruled  at  Alexandria  for  nearly  three  cen- 
turies. Under  the  fostering  care  of  some  of  these  kings', 
who  understood  them  better  and  treated  them  more  wisely 
than  the  rival  dynasty  of  Syrian  Seleucids,  the  Jews  grew 
and  multiplied  in  prosperity  as  they  had  multiplied  in  ad- 
versity in  the  old  days  of  their  Egyptian  bondage.  Before 
the  dawn  of  the  Christian  era  they  bad  increased  to  a  mil- 
lion, and  not  only  occupied  two  of  the  five  quarters  of  Alex- 
andria as  their  exclusive  Ghetto,  but  were  also  in  possession 
of  the  best  localities  for  business  in  the  rest  of  the  city. 
Their  synagogue — the  famous  Diapleuston,  with  its  seventy 
gilded  chairs,  and  its  size  so  vast  that  the  signal  for  the 
"  Aniens  "  of  the  congregation  had  to  be  given  by  a  flag — 
was  the  grandest  in  the  world."  Tlie  management  of  the 
harbour-shipping,  and  of  the  all-important  export  of  corn, 
on  which  Rome  depended  for  its  daily  bread,  was  mainly  in 
their  hands. '^     Their  Sanhedrin  was  almost  as  venerable  as 


'  T>'}o^.  Laert.  ii.  102. 

2  Eis  Vf  KoLi  i)  TTavTOLXoOev  avveppel  vforq^  Twf  jrepi  f^iAotroi^cai'  eairovSaKorioy  ((ireg.  Nyss. 
F/V.  Greg.  T/mumnt.). 

3  It  is  an  interesting  fact — a  link  between  the  farther  and  neai^er  epochs  of  antiquity — that 
Jaddua,  n.c.  333.  is  the  latest  person  (chronologically)  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    Nehcm.  xi>^22  :  Jos.  Anit.  xi.  8,  §  5. 

*  .See  a  descnption  of  the  Diapleuston  or  Great  Synagogue  of  Alexandria  (of  which  it  was 
said  tliat  "whoever  had  not  seen  it,  had  not  seen  the  glory  of  Israel ")  in  Succah,  f.  51.  b. 
']"here  is  the  usual  monstrous  hyperbole — e.g.,  that  each  oi  the  71  gilded  chairs  for  the  Sanhe- 
drin was  worth  21  myriad  talents  of  gold  !     See  Gratz,  Gfsch.d.  Juden,  iv.  128. 

'-  Philo,  c.  Flac.  li.  525  (ed.  Mangey). 


ALEXANDRIAN    INFLUENXES.  163 

that  of  Jerusalem.  Their  Alabarch  was  one  of  the  principal 
persons  in  the  city,  and  occupied  a  position  of  splendid  dig- 
nity. The  Temple  of  Onias  at  Leontop(jlis,  while  it  did  not 
alienate  their  affections  from  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  was 
a  continual  source  of  pride  and  gratification/  So  great  was 
tlie  skill  of  the  Alexandrian  handicraftsmen  that,  if  any  of 
the  tinest  work  was  required  for  the  adornment  of  the  Tem- 
ple at  Jerusalem,  the  Rabbis  sent  for  workmen  to  Alexan- 
dria, as  Solomon  had  done  to  the  Phoenicians  in  days  of  old." 
The  privileges  of  the  Jews  had  been  secured  to  them  under 
the  Roman  Empire  by  the  generous  edicts  of  Julius  Caesar 
and  other  emperors/ 

The  Jews  had  been  able  on  more  than  one  occasion  to 
render  valuable  assistance  to  the  Ptolemies,  and  especially 
to  Ptolemy  Philometor  in  his  struggles  against  his  brother 
Physkon.  It  was  natural  that  the  Egypto-Grecian  kings 
should  desire  ta  know  something  of  the  vaunted  lore  of 
these  remarkable  subjects.  The  Greek  Version  of  the  Bible, 
so  famous  under  the  name  of  the  Septuagint,  was  under- 
taken for  the  gratification  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  who 
wished  to  have  a  specimen  of  the  Bible  in  the  great  library;* 
or,  perhaps,  as  a  result  of  the  amicable  relations  between 
Ptolemy  Philometor  and  the  Jew^ish  philosopher  Aristobu- 
lus.  The  House  of  Lagos  must  have  some  of  the  credit  for 
its  production.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  history  of 
this  version — which  is  much  obscured  by  the  fictions  of 
Aristeas  as  to  its  miraculous  origin — the  effects  which  it 
produced  were  deep  and  lasting.  The  Septuagint  was,  as 
the  modern  Jewish  historian  quaintly  observes,  ''the  first 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles."  For  the  first  time  the  heathen 
of  every  land  were  enabled  to  read  and  judge  for  them- 
selves of  all  that  '' Moses  delivered  in  his  //ijsti^  Yolume/' " 
The  translators  of  the  Greek  Bible,  whose  names  are  for 
the  most  part  unknown,  rendered  two  immense,  but  uncon- 
scious, services  to  the  Christianity  which  was  soon  to  shine 
upon  the  world.  They  disseminated  the  monotheistic  con- 
viction, with  the  historic  revelation  on  wdiich  it  was  based  ; 
and  they  created  the  peculiar  dialect  in  which  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  written.     The  task  of  the  Apostles  and  Evan- 

'  It  seems  to  have  been  built  about  a.d.  130. 

-  Voma,  38,  I  ;  Gratz,  iii.  28.  3  Jos.  A»t^.  xiv.  10,  §§  i-io. 

■•  It  is  said  that  his  attention  was  called  to  the  subject  by  the  eminent  librarian,  Demetrius 
Phalereus. 

^  Juv.  Saf.  xiv.  102.  The  epithet  '■^  area  no"  seems  to  be  due  to  the  talk  of  alle^orists, 
who  denied  that  the  literal  sense  was  the  real  sense. 


1 64  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

gelists  would  have  been  far  more  difficult  than  it  was,  if 
they  had  not  found  ready  to  their  hands  a  dialect  which  was 
even  more  flexible  than  the  pure  Greek  of  the  Classics,  and 
a  religious  phraseology  for  technical  conceptions  which  had 
already  begun  to  be  Avidely  understood. 

The  appearance  of  the  Septuagint  Version  affected  the 
Jews  in  very  different  ways.  To  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  and 
generally  to  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  it  fujrnished  an  oc- 
casion for  unmitigated  joy.  They  could  now  point  witli 
pride  to  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  in  proof 
that  they  too  were  in  possession  of  a  priceless  literature. 
They  could  show  the  Greeks  that  there  were  Hebrew  writers 
even  greater  than  Pythagoras  and  Plato,  who  were  the 
boa^  of  Heathendom.  The  tenets  of  their  religion  became 
better  known,  and  therefore  more  respected,  wherever 
Greek  was  understood.  Though  Hebrew  was  now  a  dead 
language,  and  the  Jews  of  Europe  and  Asia  had  for  the  most 
part  forgotten  their  native  Aramaic,  they  were  kept  faithful 
to  the  laws  and  institutions  of  their  fathers.  Thanks  to  the 
labours  of  ''  the  Seventy,"  Moses  was  read  in  the  synagogues 
every  Sabbath  day,  and  interpreted  into  a  tongue  under- 
standed  of  the  people.^  We  cannot,  therefore,  wonder  that 
the  Alexandrian  Jews  kept  the  day  of  the  publication  of  the 
Septuagint  as  an  annual  feast-day,  on  Avhich  they  visited 
with  every  sign  of  rejoicing  the  cells  on  the  island  of  the 
Pharos  in  which  tradition  said  that  the  version  had  been 
finished  by  supernatural  aid. 

Far  different  were  the  views  of  the  stern  old  Hebraisers 
— the  Hebrews  of  Hebrews — who  taught  in  the  schools  of 
Palestine  and  Jerusalem.  Rejecting  the  fiction  of  Aristeas, 
that  the  interpreters  had  been  sent  to  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 
from  Jerusalem  by  the  express  sanction  of  the  high-priest 
Eleazar,  and  scornfully  denying  that  God  had  shown  His 
approval  by  granting  inspiration  to  the  Translators,  they  re- 
garded the  rendering  of  their  sacred  tenets  into  a  profane 
language  as  an  irreparable  misfortune.  It  had  long  been 
forbidden  to  write  the  words  of  the  Torah  on  the  skins  of 
unclean  animals  ;  surely,  they  argued,  it  was  a  far  greater 
profanation  to  express  them  in  the  accents  of  a  pagan  dia-  , 
lect.     Was  it  c\c\\  possible  so  to  express  them  ?     Was  it  pos- 

'  In  the  Life  of  St.  Paul,  i.  365,  I  have  mentioned  the  interesting  fact  that  from  the 
Midrash,  or  expository  sermon  delivered  by  the  Apostle,  we  are  enabled  to  tell  with  cer- 
tainty what  Pnrashah  and  Ilaphtarah,  or  First  and  Second  Lessons,  had  been  read  from 
the  LXX.  in  the  Synagogue  of  Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  on  a  certain  Sabbath  more  than  eighteen 
centuries  ago. 


ALEXANDRIAN    IxXFLUENCES.  165 

sible  to  place  them  in  the  crucible  of  an  unhallowed  lan- 
guage and  not  to  evaporate  some  of  their  subtlest  elements 
of  truth  ?  How  could  the  God  of  Sliem  speak  in  the  un- 
blessed accents  of  Japhet  ?  Was  it  not  certain  that,  apart 
from  the  impossibility  of  making  one  tongue  express  the 
exact  sentiments  of  anuther,  there  would  be  large  room  for 
luifaithful  concessions  to  Greek  and  heathen  prejudices  on 
the  part  of  the  Translators  ?  As  a  counter-manifesto  to  the 
exultation  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews,'  they  kept  the  day  of 
the  publication  of  the  Greek  Bible  as  a  Fast,  and  a  day  of 
evil  omen  as  deadly  as  that  on  which  Israel  had  danced 
around  the  golden  calf.''^ 

And  from  their  point  of  view  the  Rabbis  of  Jerusalem 
were  more  than  half  right.  They  had  good  grounds  for  be- 
ing suspicious  of  what  they  called  the  "  wisdom  of  the 
lonians."  '^  The  publication  of  the  Bible  in  Greek  did  tend 
to  alter  the  conceptions  of  the  Jews  ;  to  widen  their  tri- 
balism ;  to  prepare  the  way  for  Christianity  ;  to  throw  down 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  them  and  other  na- 
tions ;  to  show  the  absurdity  of  many  of  the  legends,  prece- 
dents, and  inferential  systems  which  they  had  based  on  the 
isolation  of  their  favourite  ''texts."  But,  further  than  this, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Judaism,  when  denuded  of 
the  ism  wherein  resided  its  intense  exclusiveness,  lost  also 
much  of  its  distinctive  character.  When  the  Jews  began  to 
recognise  that  they  were  not  the  monopolists  of  truth,  they 
developed  a  tendency  to  iniderrate  the  preciousness  of  the 
truth  which  was  their  special  heritage.  It  was  by  no  means 
easy  to  fulfil  the  aspiration  of  the  learned  Rabbi  Jochanan 
Ben  Napuchah,  who  had  desired  to  unite  the  pallium  of  Ja- 
phet with  the  tallith  of  Shem.*  When  in  the  troubles  which 
burst  upon  the  Alexandrian  Jews  in  the  Proconsulship  of 
Flaccus  many  of  them  purchased  exemption  from  torture 
and  massacre  by  apostasy,  the  religious  conservatives  of 
Palestine  were  strengthened  in  their  conviction  that  the  Jews 
could  never  study  without  peril  the  literature  of  the  Gen- 
tiles.    When  an  old  Rabbi  was  asked  at  what  hour  Grecian 

'  Philo,  P'i^.  Mos.  ii.  140. 

-  See  Frankel,  Vorstudien,  i.  6r.  In  later  times  Justin  Martyr  complained  that  the  Jews 
had  falsified  the  Septuagint  by  cutting  out  passages  which  told  ni  favour  of  the  ChrisMaus, 
such  as,  "Tell  it  out  among  the  heathen,  the  Lord  reigned  front  the  tree''''  {anb  fuAou).  Ps. 
xcvi.  10.  See  Just.  Mart.  I>ia/.  pp.  169,  170.  Tert.  .-idrf.  Marc.  iii.  19.  Aug.  Enarratt. 
in  Ps.  p.  714.     liut  the  words  were  probably  a  Christian  gloss. 

3  "  Chokmath  Jaiiaft'ith.'''     See  Derenbourg,  Palest,  p.  361. 

*  See  Life  0/  Christ,  ii.  461  ;  Life  0/ St.  Paul,  i.  37.  (Midrash  Rabbah  on  Gen.  xx.wi. 
etc.) 


1 66  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

literature  might  be  studied,  he  replied  that  it  could  only  be 
studied  at  an  hour  which  belonged  neither  to  the  day  nor 
to  the  night ;  for  God's  Law,  and  that  only,  ought  to  be 
man's  meditation  both  day  and  night/ 

Even  the  Sev^enty  had  shown  that  they  either  did  not 
sufficiently  imderstand  the  duty  of  absolute  faithfulness  in 
translators,  or  that  in  some  instances  their  sense  of  the  lit- 
eral meaning  of  the  Sacred  Text  had  been  biassed  by  the 
spirit  of  the  age  in  which  they  moved.  Certain  it  is  that 
they  had  left  traceable  indications  of  their  private  opinions, 
and  of  the  tone  of  thought  by  which  they  were  surrounded. 

In  some  particulars  their  variations  from  the  original 
had  been  comparatively  harmless..  If  in  reading  the  lists  of. 
clean  and  unclean  animals  the  reader  came  upon  the  Greek 
word  dasi/poKs,  or ''rough-footed,"  when  he  knew  that  the 
animal  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  was  the  hare  (arnebeth),  he 
soon  remembered  with  a  smile  that,  if  the  courtly  translator 
had  rendered  the  word  literally  by  Lagos,  the  Ptolemies 
might  have  seen  with  disgust  that  the  founder  of  their  dy- 
nasty bore  the  name  of  an  animal  which  the  Jews  regarded 
as  unclean  !  Again,  if  he  found  the  homely  ass  {onos),  on 
which  Moses  and  the  sons  of  Jair  rode,  dignified  into  a 
prancing  steed  {polos),  this  might  seem  to  him  a  simple  way 
of  avoiding  the  scorn  which  a  Greek  unfamiliar  with  the 
value  attached  to  the  ass  in  Eastern  countries  would  have 
felt  when  he  read  of  any  eminent  person  bestriding  an 
animal  so  humble  and  so  despised.'^  He  would  have  been 
further  amused  by  finding  Keren  Happuk,  the  daughter  of 
Job  (Job  xlii.  14),  whose  name  means  "born  of  stibium," 
turned  into  "  Amalthea's  horn  ;  "  and  by  the  substitution  of 
(rreek  for  Hebrew  proverbs  in  i  Kings  xx.  11  and  Prov. 
xxiii.  27.^  Again,  the  Seventy,  in  not  a  few  instances,  had 
introduced  or  implied  the  legends  (Hagadoth)  and  prece- 
dents for  inferential  rules  (Halachoth)  which  were  not  only 
sanctioned  in  the  Rabbinic  schools  of  Jerusalem,  but  which 
it  was  their  main  occupation  to  discover,  and  to  record. 
Thus  in  Deut.  xxxii.  8  they  had,  "  He  set  bounds  to  the 
people  according  to  the  number  of  the  Angels  of  God  ;  "  in 
Josh.  xxiv.  30  they  insert  that  the  flint  knives  used  for  cir- 
cumcision in  the  wilderness  had  been  buried  in  Joshua's 
grave;  in  Ex.   xiii.  18  they  rendered  "harnessed"  by  '■'■five 

■  Rabbi  Ishmael,  arguing  from  Jos.  i.  8.     Menachoth,  f.  99,  2  ( Dereribourg,  Palest.  361). 

*  The  LXX.  were  fond  of  euphemisms,  as  in  their  randering  of  (ien.  xHx.  10  ;  Deut.  xxiii. 
14  ;  Nah.  iii.  s  ;  Is.  iii.  17  ;  Job  xxxi.  10.  'I'hey  show  a  httle  national  vanity  in  small  matters 
in  Ex.  ii.  i  ;   iv.  6  ;   vi.  12,  15;    1  Sam.  xv.  12.  *  Frankel,  Vorstud.  i.  203. 


ALEXANDRIAN    INFLUENCES.  1 6/ 

abreast;''  in  Gen.  iv.  4  they  added  that  God  "•  kindled  by 
fire  "  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  ;  in  Josh.  xiii.  22  they  follow  the 
legend  which  made  Balaam,  like  Simon  Magus,  fly  in -the 
air,  until  he  was  dashed  down  (iu  poTrrj)  by  Phinehas  ;  in 
I  Sam.  XX.  30  they  imply  that  Jonathan's  mother  was  one  of 
the  maidens  seized  at  Shiloh  ;  in  Num.  xxxii.  12  they  intro- 
duce the  belief  that  Caleb  w^as  of  Gentile  origin. 

These  were  pardonable  eccentricities.  But  there  was 
one  important  matter  of  dogma  in  which  the  Seventy  had 
shown  that  they  were  the  children  of  their  own  epoch  and 
had  deeply  imbibed  the  opinions  of  the  Greek  philosophers. 
The  Supreme  Being  of  the  Greek  philosophers  had  been  a 
Being  infinitely  exalted  above  human  imperfections,  and 
therefore  a  Being  absolutely  unlimited  by  human  pe- 
culiarities. This  view  of  '^  the  Divine"  had  impressed  itself 
on  the  philosophising  Hellenists  of  Alexandria.  They  dis- 
liked the  simple '^  a/it/iropomor/>/iism"  oi  the  earlier  Sacred 
books,  and  did  not  wish  to  represent  the  God  of  Israel  to 
the  Gentiles  as  one  who  was  pictured  with  a  body,  or  who 
appeared  in  human  form  to  the  eyes  of  men.  Still  less  was 
it  consonant  with  Alexandrian  prejudice  to  give  literal 
renderings  of  those  expressions  which  spoke  of  God  by 
what  is  called  ''^  anthropopathy'' — that  is,  as  subject  to  wrath, 
repentance,  or  other  human  emotions.  Yet  the'' anthro- 
pomorphism "  and  "  anthropopathy  "  of  the  early  Scriptural 
books  could  only  be  modified  by  imperfect  or  unfaithful 
renderings  ; — and  of  these  the  translators  did  not  hesitate  to 
be  guilty.'  In  Gen.  vi.  6  the  expression  "it  repented  the 
Lord,"  and  similar  phrases  elsewiiere,  quietly  disappear  from 
the  Greek  Version.  In  Ex.  xxiv.  10  the  Elders  of  Israel  are 
not  allowed  to  see  "God,"  but  only  "''the  place  where  God 
stoodr  '  The  falsification  of  the  following  words  is  still 
more  startling.  Instead  of  "  Upon  the  nobles  ....  He 
laid  not  His  hand  ;  also  they  saw  God,"  we  hav^e  the  daring 
change  "  Of  the  elders  of  Israel  fiot  even  one  perished  (diepho- 
nesen)  ^//^  tJiey  were  seen  in  the  place  of  Gody  Well  might 
the  Talmudist  ^  charge  the  Seventy  with  intentional  per- 
version of  the  text  in  this  place.  In  Ex.  iv.  16,  "  Thou  shalt 
be  to  him  for  God  (n-^nVN^)  "  becomes  "  Thou  shalt  be  to  him 
the  thiny;s  that  relate  to  God  (ra  Trpos  t6i/0€oi/)."  In  Num.  xii.  8 
the  Epiphany    to  Moses  is    softened  into  a  vision    of  the 


'  See  their  versions  of  Ex.  lii.  i  ;  iv.  24;  xvii.  16;  xxv.  8.     'I'hey  are  specially  audacious 
in  Ex.  xix.  3. 

2  Ex.  xxiv.  9-1 1.     Ka't  el&ov  rov  Toirov  ov  €i<rnj(c«  6  0eb«.  *  Megillah,  f.  9.  a. 


l68  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Shecliinah,  or  glory.  In  Num.  xiv.  14,  it  is  not  Jehovah,  but 
the  Shechinah  which  is  seen  face  to  face.  In  Job  xxix.  25,  in 
Ps.  xlii.  3,  and  in  many  other  places  the  direct  expression 
''Jehovah"  is  softened  into  phrases  of  which  the  intention 
always  is  to  place  as  many  intermediates  as  possible  between 
the  Supreme  and  man.  In  Job  xix.  26,  27,  for  "  Yet  in  my 
flesh  I  shall  see  God,  Whom  I  shall  see  for  myself  and  my 
eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another,"  wx  have,  '^  For  these 
things  happened  to  me  from  the  Lord,  which  I  understand  for 
myself^  zvhich  my  eye  has  seeti^  and  not  another.''  In  Job  xxxv. 
14,  "  Although  thou  sayest  thou  shalt  not  see  Him,  yet  judg- 
ment is  before  Him,  trust  thou  in  Him,"  becomes  "i^^r  the 
Almighty  sees  those  who  do  wickedness^  and  shall  save  me ;  be 
judged  before  him^  In  Ps.  xvii.  15  the  Seventy  give  us,  "/ 
shall  be  seen  before  Him  in  righteous?iess,  J  shall  be  satisfied  in 
His  glory  being  seen, ^'  In  Hezekiah's  prayer  (Is.  xxxviii.  11) 
"  I  shall  not  see  the  Lord,  the  Lord  in  the  land  of  the  living" 
is  turned  into  "  I  shall  not  see  the  salvation  of  God  in  the  land 
of  the  livings  I  shall  not  see  the  salvation  of  Israel  on  the  eat'th."  ^ 
In  Is.  ix.  6,  ''  the  mighty  God  "  becomes  "  an  Angel  of  great 
counsels 

2.  This  and  other  tendencies  find  their  illustration  in  the 
writings  of  the  Jewish  philosopher  Aristobulus  and  in  the 
JVisdom  of  Solomon."^  Aristobulus,  a  man  of  priestly  descent, 
is  said  to  have  been  the  first  Jew  who  studied  Greek  philo- 
sophy, and  he  was  an  avowed  Peripatetic.  Living  in  the 
court  of  Ptolemy  Philometor  (b.c.  160),  he  stood  in  close 
terms  of  intimacy  with  the  royal  house,  and  presented  the 
Pentateuch  to  the  King,  with  a  commentary  and  prolego- 
mena. A  fragment  of  this  work,  which  is  sometimes  called 
a  Syngramma  and  sometimes  Fropephonemena,  is  preserved 
for  us  by  the  indefatigable  labours  of  Eusebius,^  and  in  this 
fragment  Aristobulus  expressly  warns  the  King  against  a 
literal  understanding  of  anthropomorphic  expressions.  If 
God  is  spoken  of  as  having  hands,  arms,  feet,  and  so  on, 
those — he  says— must  be  simply  looked  upon  as  pictorial 
phrases.  Where  it  is  said  that  "  God  stands,"  the  reference 
is  to  the  fixed  order  of  the  universe.  The  speech  of  God  is 
only  to  be  understood  of  ultimate  causation,  for  ''  God  spake 

*  If  there  is  no  change  in  such  passages  as  Amos  ix.  i,  etc.,  it  is  because  these  are  under- 
stood as  visions  only.  For  a  full  treatment  of  the  subject  see  Frankel,  Vorstudien  zu  der 
SeJ>tuaginta. 

'^  The  .ivoidance  oi  '■''  antkropomor^kisin'''  and  ^' anthropopathy''''  in  the  Targums  is  no 
less  marked.  Dr.  Deutsch  has  supplied  many  instances  in  his  Litera>y  Remains,  pp.  348- 
356.  8  Euscb.  Praep.  Evang.  viii.  10 ;  xiii.  12. 


ALEXANDRIAN  INFLUENCES.  I Gq 

and  it  was  done."     This  philosopher  appears  to  have  trans- 
lated the  Book  of  Exodus  in  the  Septuagint  Version. 

3.  The  author  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon   availed  himself 
of  the  personification  of  ''  Wisdom  "  in  the   Book  of  Pro- 
verbs as  the   intermediate  agency  between   God  and   man 
which  the  Alexandrian  theosophy  required.     In  this  book 
"  Wisdom  "  plays  the  part  which  is  assigned  to  the  Logos 
in    the  waitings  of  Philo.     The    dualism — the  existence  of 
matter  as  the  source  of  evil  apart  from  God — of  which  there 
is  a  trace  in  the  avoidance  of  the  term  ''  Creator"  by  Aris- 
tobulus,  finds  a  distinct  expression  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
when  the  writer  says  that  God's  Almighty  hand  made  the  ^ 
w^orld  out  of  matter  without  form.^     In  the  opinion  of  the    | 
Alexandrians  the  world  was  not  created  out  of  nothing,  but   | 
out  of  the  formless  chaos,  the  Thohil  va-bohd  of  the  second   ( 
verse  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.     We  see,  too,  in  the  Book  of  \ 
Wisdom  the  dislike  of  the  body— that  view  of  it  as  the  fetter 
and  prison  rather  than  the  home  and  temple  of  the  soul — 
which  was  afterwards  so  strongly  felt  by  the  Neoplatonists 
that  the  philosopher  Plotinus  is  said  "  to  haVe  blushed  that 
he  had  a  body."     ''The  corruptible    body,"  says  this  elo- 
quent writer,   "presseth    dowm    the    soul,  and    the  earthly 
tabernacle  weigheth  down  the  mind  that  museth  upon  many 
things."  ^ 

4.  The  epochof  the  Septuagint  was  characterised  by  an  out- 
burst of  Jewish  literature  of  a  semi-ethnic  character.  A  poet 
named  Ezekiel  dramatised  the  Exodus  ;  another  named  Philo 
wrote  an  epic  on  Jerusalem  ;  a  third — Theodotus— chose  his 
theme  from  the  story  of  Dinah  and  Shechem.  Demetrius 
and  Eupolemos  w^rote  history  ;  and  the  Siory  of  Susanna  is 
one  of  several  specimens  of  Jewish  romance.  But  the  name 
of  all  the  other  Alexandrian  writers  is  eclipsed  by.that  of 
the  great  Philo,  who  reproduced  Jewish  theology  for  the 
benefit  of  Greek  and  Hellenist  philosophers,  just  as  Josephus- 
reproduced  Jewish  history  for  the  benefit  of  cultivated  Ro- 
mans. But  there  is  this  difference  between  Philo  and  Jo- 
sephus. The  astute  historian  well  knew  what  he  was  about. 
He  falsifies  and  colours,  and  omits  and  modifies  with  con- 
summate skill  and  coolness  whenever  it  suits  him,  and  feels 
as  little  scruple  in  assimilating  the  Pharisees  to  the  Stoics 
as  he  feels  in  describing  the  Angel  who  appeared  to  the 
mother  of  Samson  as  a  handsome  youth  who  kindled  the 


>  Wisd.  xi.  17.  ■■'  Wisd.  ix.  15. 


170  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

jealousy  of  Manoah.  Philo,  on  the  other  hand,  wrote  with 
far  greater  unconsciousness.  Unable  to  read  Hebrew  '  — 
knowing, the  Sacred  books  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  in  the 
Greek  Version — having  breathed  from  childhood  the  atmo- 
sphere of  Alexandrian  speculation — he  no  doubt  considered 
that  he  had  really  grasped  the  key  to  the  inner  meaning 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  that  his  method  of  exegesis  was  the 
only  way  to  rescue  them  from  philosophic  contempt.  But 
ic  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  he  invented  the  philo- 
sophic system  which  is  generally  known  by  his  name.  The 
main  beliefs  of  that  system  were — that  matter  is  impure  ; 
that  Gk)d  cannot  appear  under  material  form,  and  is  there- 
fore invisible  ;  that  He  chose  the  Jewish  people  to  receive 
His  revelations  ;  that  those  revelations  can  only  be  inter- 
preted by  allegoric  methods  ;  that  He  deals  with  men  solely 
through  the  Logos  or  Word,  and  the  logoi  or  Divine  forces  ; 
that  the  body  is  the  source  of  evil ;  that  the  soul  is  pre- 
existent ;  that  to  gain  God's  mercy  the  flesh  must  be  slain, 
and  we  must  attain  to  the  virtues  of  resia"nation,  unworldli- 
ness,  simplicity,  faith,  hope,  and  love.  But  none  of  these 
views  was  absolutely  original.  He  does  not  announce  them 
as  such.  He  writes  as  though  he  were  addressing  readers 
who  w^ould  at  once  recognise  the  truth  of  what  he  says. 
His  thoughts,  apart  from  many  new  illustrations,  are  not 
peculiar  to  him,  but  are  found  throughout  the  whole  circle 
of  Alexandrian  literature.^  The  grounds  for  this  statement 
will  be  found  in  the  sketch  of  the  life  and  writings  of  Philo, 
which  occupies  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER  Xni. 

PHILO,    AND    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS. 

Sxe'Sor  yap  to.  navTa  r)  to.  n-Aetora  t^s  I'op.oSeo-ta;  aAAiyyopeirai. 

Philo,  D<r  Josepko. 

Among  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  the  family  of  the  Alabarch 
Alexander  had  risen  to  a  pre-eminent  position.  They  were 
of  priestly  origin,  and  of  wealth  so  immense  that  on  one 
occasion  Alexander,  out  of  regard  to  Queen  Cypros,  found 
no   difficulty   in  lending  to  Agrippa  L   the   great   sum   of 

'  This  is  clear  from  his  mistakes  in  explaining  simple  Hebrew  names.  See  Frankel,  Vor- 
stiidien.,  ii.  28-41. 

'f  To  prove  this  is  the  object  of  the  second  volume  of  Gfrorer's  learned  book  on  Philo,  to 
svhiolU  have  1  een  much  indebted.  The  author  has  pointed  out  that  there  are  in  Josephus 
many  traces  <jf  siniil.'ir  views. 


fe 


PHILO,    AND    THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE    LOCOS.       17 1 

200,000  drachmae.'  At  Jerusalem  the  family  was  favourably 
known  from  the  splendid  generosity  with  which  the  Ala- 
barch  had  enriched  nine  gates  of  the  Temple  with  silver  and 
,old.^  At  Rome  they  were  so  much  lionoured  for  their  in- 
tegrity that  Antonia,  the  mother  of  Claudius,  made  Alex- 
ander her  steward,  and  Claudius  showed  him  marked  favour. 
His  son,  Tiberius  Alexander,  at  the  terrible  price  of  apos- 
tasy from  his  religion,  rose  so  high  in  the  Roman  service  as 
to  be  appointed  Procurator  of  Palestine,  and,  afterwards, 
Proefect  of  Alexandria.  Of  the  other  two  sons,  one  married 
Berenice,  and  died  early,  the  other  succeeded  his  father  in 
the  office  of  Alabarch.^ 

Philo  was  the  brother  of  this  Jewish  Croesus,*  and  there- 
fore the  uncle  of  the  three  Alexandrian  Jew^s  who  played  so 
considerable  a  part  in  the  history  of  their  day.  He  seems 
to  have  passed  his  life  in  unbroken  prosperity,  troubled  only 
by  that  "inexorable  weariness "  which  is  experienced  by 
most  men  at  some  period  of  their  lives.  He  complains  some- 
what querulously  of  burdens  which  might  have  been  lightly 
borne  by  those  who  had  been  called  upon  to  face  severer 
troubles.^  He  was  married,  and  his  wife  had  so  profound 
an  admiration  for  him  that,  when  asked  why  she  wore  no 
jewels,  she  answered,  in  the  spirit  of  the  mother  of  the 
Gracchi,  that  "her  husband's  virtue  was  her  sufficient  jewel- 
lery." '^  In  Philo's  single  visit  to  Jerusalem,  which  fell  dur- 
ing the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  his  priestly  birth  secured  him  the 
privilege  of  offering  sacrifices  in  the  Temple.''  In  the  trou- 
bles which  arose  in  Alexandria  from  the  brutality  of  the 
Greek  and  Egyptian  mob  and  the  ill-humour  of  the  Praefect 
Flaccus,  he  was  chosen  one  of  the  ambassadors  to  the  Emperor 
Gains,  and  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  strange  scenes  of  which 
he  has  left  so  vivid  a  picture  in  his  description  of  the  insane 
and  odious  tyrant.^  He  employed  his  peaceful  days  in  ac- 
quiring the  knowledge,  superficial  in  character,  but  encyclo- 
paedic in  range,  which  was  the  fashion  of  his  time  ;  and  he 
threw  himself  with  enthusiasm  into  the  pious  task  of  alle- 
gorising Scripture  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  speak  the 
language  of  Greek  philosophy,  and  especially  of  "  the  holy 

1  Jos.  Afitt.  xviii.  6,  §  3.  .  2  /^.,  b.  7/ v.  s,  §  3. 

3  Jos.  A//it.  xix.  5,  §  I  :  XX.  5,  §  2.       ^  *  Ibid,  xviii.  8,  §  i  ;  Gfrorer,  Philo,  i.  1-7. 

5  De  Legg.  Spec,  ii.,  ad  init.  arivtav  fi*  o/u.ais  o.v-rix'^-  (Mangey,  ii.  299.)  My  references 
to  Philo  will  be  made  to  the  folio  edition  of  JMangey  (1742),  but  I  generally  add  the  section 
also.  8  Fragni.     fMang.  ii.  673.) 

'  See  Euseb.  Praep.  p.vang.  viii.  12  ;  Jer.  Cat.  Script.  Some  tliink  that  Alexander  in 
Acts  iv.  6  was  his  brother.  . 

^  In  his  Lei^atio  ud  Caiuiii.  the  most  popular  of  his  writings. 


172  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Plato  "  and  '*  the  holy  community  of  the  Pythagoreans."  ' 
He  was  one  of  those  who,  under  God's  Providence,  helped 
to  pave  the  way  for  Christianity,  but  that  he  was  not  him- 
self a  Christian,  as  early  legends  assert,  is  shown  by  the  ab- 
sence from  his  writings  of  every  distinctively  Christian  truth. 
Judaism  sufficed  him.  In  one  eloquent  passage  he  argues 
for  the  Divine  Mission  of  Moses  from  the  immutability  of 
his  legislation  amid  the  numberless  vicissitudes  of  Jewish 
life,  while  the  w^orks  of  all  other  law^givers  had  been  in- 
cessantly modified,  abrogated,  and  sw^ept  aw^ay.^ 

All  the  numerous  works  of  Philo  may  be  grouped  around 
four  treatises  ;  namely,  those  on  the  Creation  of  the  world  ; 
on  Abraham  ;  on  Joseph  ;  and  on  tlie  Life  of  Moses.^ 

I.  The  first  of  these — the  book  on  the  Creation — and  the 
tracts  which  touch  upon  cognate  subjects — are  an  endeav- 
our to  bring  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  into  harmony  w^ith  the 
view^s  of  Plato  in  his  Timceus.''  Philo  keeps  in  sight  two 
elements  of  creation  : — on  the  one  hand  a  formless  chaos  ; 
on  the  other  a  Being  better  than  all  goodness,  holier  than 
all  holiness,  more  beautiful  than  all  beauty,  of  Whom  man 
may  know  indeed  that  He  />,  but  hardly  ivhat  He  is.^  But 
how  w^as  it  possible  to  bridge  over  the  vast  abyss  between 
the  tw^o  ?  How^,  in  the  w^ords  of  Plato,  could  the  mortal  be 
woven  into  the  immortal  ?  Philo  meets  the  difficulty 
partly  by  the  conception  of  the  Logos,  "  the  Word  "  by 
Whom  God  created  all  things  ;  and  partly  by  the  yet  lower 
agencies  of  ''  intermediate  words  " — spiritual  entities — an- 
gels of  all  kinds,  "  thrones,  dominations,  virtues,  prince- 
doms, powers  " — who  had  their  share  in  the  work  of  crea- 
tion, and  by  whose  existence  Philo  accounts  for  the  plural 
*'  Let  us  make  man."  The  visible  world  was  not  created  at 
once,  but  there  existed  in  the  Divine  understanding  an  eter- 
nal determination  not  to  leave  Chaos  in  its  formlessness. 
This  determination  constituted  a  spiritual  world,  Avhich  was 
the  archetype  and  examplar  of  the  visible.     It  was  the  Per- 

1  De  Provid.  ii.  42  :  "  Qiiod  omnis  prob.  liber,"  ad  init.  Tov  HvOayopeiwv  ieputTarov 
eiaaov.  2  j)g  /  v/rt  Mosis,  ii.  §  3  (Mangcy,  ii.  136). 

a  See  teller,  iii.  2,603  '■<  Hausiath,  A'eutest.  Zeitgesch.  Die  Zeit  d.  Afost.  152.  fJfiorer 
divides  his  wntin^js  into  four  general  classes: — (i)  Philosophic  {De  inundi  iticor}-uptibili- 
iate;  Quod  otnnis probi4S  liber  ;  De  vita  contemplativ.i]  :  (2)  Historical  [De  miuidi  opi- 
ficio  ;  De  vita  Alosis  ;  De  Decalogo  ;  De  Monarchtd  ;  De  Circiimcisione  ;  De  legib-us 
speciniibus  :  De praetniis  et  poenis,  etc.)  ;  (3)  AWcgorh'mg  {Liber  Lrgis  nllegvriarj^m  ;  De 
somniis,  etc.)  :    (4)  Political  {Legatio  ad  Caium  ;    Contra  Flaccum)  ;   Philo.  i.  7-37. 

"•  Hence  the  oft-quoted  proverb,  "  Either  Philo  platonises,  or  Plato  philonises."  '  (Suidas, 
etc.) 

^  St.  John,  on  the  other  hand,  says  (i.  3),  "  Without  Him  was  not  even  one  thing  made 
that  liath  been  made." 


PIIILO,    AND   THE   DOCTRINE    OF   THE   LOGOS.       1/3 

feet  Idea,  of  whieh  material  existenees  are  the  transient  and 
imperfect  copy. 

11.  In  the  treastise  on  Abraham  and  on  Joseph,  Philo  gives 
the  reins  to  his  imagination.  The  simple  narratives  of 
Scripture  become,  as  narratives,  almost  valueless.  They 
lose  their  historical  beauty  and  Ijuman  interest.  They  become 
elaborate  allegories,  through  which  move  a  crowd  of  vapid 
abstractions.  Abraham  leaving  his  country  and  his  kindred 
and  his  father's  house,  is  lowered  into  a  sort  of  typical  Stoic 
departing  from  the  Chaldaea  of  the  sensual  understanding 
to  seek  the  land  of  pure  reason,  and  turning  his  back  upon 
desire,  and  fear,  and  ambition.  He  is,  in  fact,  not  an  Oriental 
Emir  called  to  inaugurate  the  era  of  the  chosen  people,  but 
a  symbol  of  the  soul  seeking  God.  The  Chaldees  wor- 
shipped stars,  and  therefore  the  call  to  Haran  was  an  indi- 
cation that  he  was  to  look,  not  at  the  universe,  but  at  him- 
self. Haran  means  "  Holes,"  and  is  a  symbol  of  the  five 
senses..  Abraham's  further  wanderings  mean  that  he  attains 
to  the  knowledge  of  God.  Abram  means,  according  to  Philo, 
*'  aspiring  father,"  with  an  allusion  to  his  star-worship,  but 
Abraham  means  "father  of  sound."  Sound  is  like  speech, 
buf  father  of  sound  "is  like  spirit  w^iich  utters  sound.'  Sim- 
ilarly he  says  that  Sarai  means  ' '  my  rule, "  and  Sarra  (=  Sarah) 
''princess;"  and  that  the  first  name  allegorically  signifies 
particular  virtue,  which  is  transient ;  and  the  second,  gen- 
eric virtue,  which  is  eternal  and  incorruptible."  Thus  the 
grand  old  patriarch  becomes  a  cold  cypher,  indicative  of  men- 
tal earnestness  ;  Sarah,  the  beautiful  and  passionate  Eastern 
woman,  fades  into  an  unsatisfactory  symbol  for  an  abstraction. 
The  laughter  from  which  the  name  of  Isaac  was  derived,  be- 
comes the  joy  of  the  philosopher  who  has  conquered  every 
evil  impulse,  and  entered  into  the  rest  of  the  Eternally  Real. 
And  whereas  Sarah  is  Virtue  and  abstract  Wisdom,  Hagar 
represents  only  the  general  sciences  of  grammar,  music, 
geometry,  dialectics,  and  rhetoric  !  If  Jacob  comes  to  a 
certain  place  when  the  sun  sets,  the  statement  in  the  Philo- 
nian  system  is  explained  by  the  remarks  that  the  sun  is  the 
perceptive  faculty,  the  place  is  the  Divine  Word,  and  Jacob 
is  wisdom  attained  by  training.  Hence  the  only  value  which 
that  patlietic  and  deeply  instructive  story  possesses  for 
Philo  is  the  somewhat  dreary  platitude  that  man  can  only 


•  TlaTTip  €KAe/cTos  fjxov.     De  Cherubim,  i.  §  2  (Mang.  i.  139). 
2  De  nom.  muiat.  \  8,  etc.  (Mang.  i.  591,  etc.). 


174  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

grasp   the  Divine  when   his  natural  understanding  has  set 
like  the  sun.^ 

III.  In  the  Life  of  Moses,  Philo  is  anxious  to  prove  the 
absurd  hypothesis  that  the  Gentiles  liave  learnt  their  wisdom 
and  philosophy  from  the  Jews,  and  that  Moses  was  practi- 
cally the  master  of  Hesiod  and  Heraclitus,  of  Plato  and 
Zeno."  Here,  as  everywhere,  Philo  cares  almost  nothing 
for  the  letter  of  the  Law.  He  is  indeed  a  faithful  Jew,  and 
thinks  that  the  Law  should  be  rigidly  observed.  Just  as  we 
cherish  the  body  as  the  dwelling-place  of  the  soul,  so  (he 
says)  ought  we  to  keep  the  letter  of  the  Law,  although  its 
real  meaning  lies  exclusively  in  the  esoteric  senses  which 
can  be  tortured  out  of  it.^  Circumcision,  and  the  Sabbath, 
and  all  the  other  Mosaic  institutions,  are  but  allegories.* 
Even  as  to  the  plainest  details  of  jurisprudence,  which,  in 
their  homely  realism,  seemed  too  coarse  to  form  any  part  of 
a  Divine  revelation,  such,  for  instance,  as  that  which  pun- 
ished the  immodest  interference  of  women  in  quarrels — an 
explanation  was  forthcoming.  The  passage  is  made  to 
mean  that  every  soul  has  male  and  female  elements,  of 
which  the  male  elements  reach  forth  to  the  heavenly  and  the 
female  to  the  earthly,  and  that  our  natural  tendency  towards 
the  transitory  must  be  flung  off.^  So  sincere  was  Philo  in 
his  belief  that  truth  could  only  be  found  in  these  strange 
paths  of  exegesis,  that  he  thanked  God  for  having  allowed 
him  to  be  the  interpreter  who  rendered  clear  the  meaning 
of  that  which  to  the  mass  of  men  had  hitherto  been  unin- 
telligible.^ He  even  tells  us  that  he  occasionally  fell  into 
ecstasies,  in  which  he  was  prophetically  made  aware  of  pro- 
found meanings,  which  otherwise  would  have  escaped  him.'^ 
Yet,  though  he  thus  allegorises  everything,  his  views  wholly 
differ  from  those  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  Anything  like 
disrespect  for  tlie  letter  of  the  Law  struck  him  as  impious. 
He  delights  to  point  out  instances  of  retribution  which  fell 
on  the  enemies  of  Israel.  He  tells  of  an  Alexandrian  who, 
having  made  himself  merry  on  '*  the  splendid  present  which 
the  Lord  of  the  world  had  made  to  the  patriarch  Abraham 

1  "  Quod  a  Deo  tnittafitur  somnia^''  %  xxii.  sq.  (Mang.  i.  638,  sq.  ;  Gratz,  iii.  295). 

2  Cut's  rer.  div.  /lucres  (i.  503,  and  other  passages).     See  Gratz,  iii.  295. 
^  De  Cherubim,  ad  hiit,  and  />ass/jn. 

*  J.efi.  nlleg;g.,  ad  init.  (Mang.  i.  43)  ;  De  Josepho,  §  6  (Mang.  ii.  46). 

^  De  spec,  le^^g.  (ii.  329)  ;  Dc  circuinc.  (ii.  211)  ;  Gratz,  iii.  297. 

^  De  spec.  legg.  (ii.  300). 

'  De  Cherubim,  %  10  (i.  143)  :  "  I  once  also  heard  something  of  still  deeper  significance 
from  my  soul,  which  is  frequently  accustomed  to  be  filled  with  inspiration  (0eoArj7rTet<r0at), 
and  to  e.xercisc  divination  (/xai'Tevea^at)  concerning  things  which  it  does  not  know." 


ririLO,    AND    THE   DOCTRINE    OF   THE    EUGOS.       1/5 

and  his  wife  Sarah,  by  presenting  tiie  one  (in  Greek)  with 
the  letta  alpha  and  the  other  with  the  letter  r//^,"  became 
afterwards  mad,  as  a  punishment  inflicted  on  him  by  Hea- 
ven.' 

The  Philonian  method  is  of  all  styles  of  exegesis  the  most 
arbitrary.  But  Philo  unquestionably  did  not  invent  it. 
Both  among  Rabbis  and  Alexandrians  it  was  already  in  the 
air.  It  sprang  from  the  spirit  of  the  times.  It  was  the  in- 
evitable result  of  two  beliefs,  w^hich  would  otherwise  have 
come  into  dangerous  collision — the  belief  in  Biblical  inspi- 
ration, and  the  belief  in  Greek  philosophy.  Alexandrian 
Jews  had  to  reconcile  the  letter  of  the  Bible  with  convic- 
tions which  could  only  be  deduced  from  it  by  allegorising 
processes.  When  they  had  come  to  believe  in  Platonic 
idealism  and  Pythagorean  mysteries — to  look  on  matter  as 
impure,  to  regard  the  Divine  Being  as  incognisable,  to  con- 
temn the  body  as  the  source  of  all  evil — they  saw  no  way 
out  of  their  difficulties  except  by  inventing  a  Logos  as 
High-priest  of  the  world,  and  subordinating  to  him  all  kinds 
of  powers  and  spirits,  until  they  had  taken  the  golden  reins 
of  external  nature  out  of  the  hands  of  God,  and  transferred 
them  to  the  charge  of  intermediate  beings.^ 

It  may  help  the  reader  to  understand  the  method  in  vir- 
tue of  which  this  Judaic  philosophy  claimed  its  sole  right 
to  exist,  if  I  furnish  one  or  two  more  specimens  of  the  alle- 
gorising inferences  which  enabled  the  Alexandrians  to  make 
Moses  express  the  thoughts  of  Plato,  and  to  turn  a  "  re- 
ligious philosophy"  into  something  which  they  took  for  ''a 
philosophic  religion."  But  for  these  I  must  refer  to  the 
Excursus  on  "Specimens  of  Philonian  Allegory"  at  the  end 
of  the  book. 

The  doctrine  most  closely  identified  with  the  name  of 
Philo  is  that  of  the  Logos  ;  and  it  is  sometimes  asserted  that 
St.  John,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews — who,  however,  seems  to  avoid  the  use  of  the 
actual  word — borrowed  it  from  him.  It  is  easy  to  show  that 
this  is  far  from  being  an  accurate  statement  of  the  case. 

The  word  Logos  has  two  meanings,  Reason  and  Speech. 
Philo  uses  it  sometimes  in  one  and  sometimes  in  the  other 
of  these  senses,  but  predominantly  in  the  former.  When  he 
wishes  to  distinguish  between  them,  he  calls  Speech  "  ut- 
tered Reason"  {logos  prophorikos)^  and  Reason   "immanent 


De  nomiH.  mviai.  §  8  (Mang.  n  587).  2  Gfrcircr,  rhilo,  i.  73. 


176  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Speech "  {logos  endiathetos).  The  Reason,  he  says,  is  like  a 
fountain,  and  the  utterance  flows  from  it.  The  seat  of  the 
reason  is  the  ruling  and  spiritual  sphere  of  human  nature  ; 
the  seat  of  speech  is  in  the  vocal  organs.^  Hence  "the  Di- 
vine Logos"  is  the  manifestation  of  God  ;  and  "the  Sacred 
logos"  is  used  for  the  Scriptures  ;  and  the  "  true  logos"  is 
the  rule  of  life,  namely,  to  live  in  accordance  with  the  high- 
est nature.  He  uses  the  plural,  "the  divine  logoi,"  for  "the 
powers  of  nature."  It  requires  but  one  step  in  advance  to 
personify  these  logoi  and  identify  them  with  angels.  On  the 
other  hand,  angels  are  sometimes  volatilised  into  ideas. 
Hence,  in  the  weakest  of  its  aspects,  the  philosophy  of  Philo 
might  be  represented  by  those  who  dislike  it  as  one  of  the 
systems  in  which  "naught  is  everything,  and  everything  is 
naught."  ^ 

But,  besides  all  this,  the  Logos  Himself  is  again  and 
again  directly  personified. 

(a.)  He  is  above  all  the  High  Priest.  Those  who  fled  to 
a  city  of  refuge  could  only  return  when  the  High-priest 
died :  Avhich  means  that  as  long  as  the  Logos  abides  in  the 
soul  no  accidental  fault  ever  can  enter  into  it ;  but  if  the 
Logos  dies,  i.e.,  is  separated  from  the  soul,  a  return  of  the 
soul  to  Him  is  possible  even  after  willing  sins.  Let  us  then 
pray  that  the  stainless  High-priest  may  live  in  the  soul  as 
our  judge  and  convincer."^ 

(/3.)  In  another  passage  he  compares  this  high-priestly 
Logos  to  a  cup-bearer.  Commenting  on  Gen.  xL,  he  says 
grapes  and  vineyards  sometimes  symbolise  the  joyous  ab- 
sorption of  the  soul  in  God,  sometimes  drunkenness  and 
wickedness.  The  cup-bearer  of  Pharaoh  is  he  who  feeds 
his  godless  master  with  sensuality ;  for  Pharaoh,  who  says 
"  I  know  not  God,"  "^  is  a  type  of  the  godless  mind.  But  the 
cup-bearer  of  God  is  the  Sacrificer,  the  true  High  Priest, 
Who  receives  and  distributes  the  eternal  gifts  of  grace,  and 
pours  out  the  holy  vials  full  of  pure  wine — that  is.  Himself.' 
And  as  the  High-priest  Aaron  was  father  of  Eleazar  and 
Ithamar,  so  the  Logos  High  Priest  is  Father  of  the  heavenly 
logoi  and  powers. 

(7^)  In  other  passages  the  Logos  is  the  image  of  God, 
the  shadow  of  God,  the  instrument  of  all  creation,  the  like- 


'  De  Vii.  miosis,  ili.  §  13  (M:ing.  ii.  154). 

2  Additional  illustrations  of  Philo's  views  about  the  Logos  will  be  found  in  Excursus  VII. 

2  De  Frofugis  (Mang.  i.  563).     The  allegory  is  more ^h an  usually  clumsy. 

■•  Philo  here  seems  to  confuse  the  Pharaoh  of  JosephlBlh  the  Pharaoh  of  Moses  (Ex.  v.  2). 

'  De  sontftiis,  ii.  (Mang.  i.  685  sq.). 


PHILO,    AND    THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   LOGOS.       1 7/ 

ness  of  God,  Who  is  the  archetype  of  all  other  things.  He 
is  also  spoken  of  as  the  eldest  and  the  firstborn  Son  of  God  ;' 
and  as  an  Archangel,  and  the  eldest  Archangel,  who  stands 
as  an  intermediate  between  the  Creator  and  the  created. 
Again,  he  is  the  angel  that  appeared  to  Hagar  ;  the  angel 
that  punished  Sodom  ;  the  God  Who  appeared  to  Jacob  at 
Bethel,  and  wrestled  with  him  at  Peniel  ;  the  angel  that  ap- 
peared to  Moses  in  the  bush  ;  the  pillar  of  fire  which  led 
the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt  ;  the  angel  which  appeared  to 
Balaam  ;  the  leader  of  Israel  through  the  wilderness.  Mel- 
chizedek  is  a  symbol  of  Him,"  and  so  are  Noah,  and  Beza- 
leel,  and  Aaron,  and  Moses. 

(d.)  By  this  time  the  reader  w411  have  seen  how  vague  is 
Philo's  conception  ;  how  it  floats  in  the  air  ;  how  the  out- 
lines of  it  are  perpetually  confused  together  or  melt  away. 
He  will  see  that  whether  any  of  the  New  Testament  waiters 
were  familiar  with  Philo,  or  only  Avith  the  circle  of  concep- 
tions in  which  he  moved,  the  amount  to  which  they  are  in- 
debted to  those  conceptions  is  as  nothing  compared  to  the 
new  and  immortal  life  which  they  breathe  into  them.  In 
Philo  they  are,  and  they  would  ever  have  remained,  dead 
philosophic  generalisations,  founded  on  loose  allegoric 
methods,  and  abounding  in  irreconcilable  contradictions. 
In  the  New  Testament  they  breathe  and  stand  on  their  feet 
as  clear,  living,  and  redemptive  truths.  Philo's  misty  and 
ever-changing  Logos  is  an  intellectual  possession  for  Judais- 
ing  philosophers,  but  is  almost  inconceivably  removed  from 
the  Divine  Redeemer,  the  Saviour  of  all  the  world.  Between 
the  doctrine  and  method  of  Philo  and  that  of  the  Apostles 
the  difference  is  as  wide  as  that  between  the  living  and  the 
dead. 

The  four  words  of  St.  John,  ^^  T/ie  Word  became  flesh,'' 
created  an  epoch.  They  tell  us  more,  and  are  of  infinitely 
more  value  to  us  than  all  the  pages  and  volumes  on  the  sub- 
ject which  Philo  and  his  contemporaries  ever  wrote.  They 
summarise  and  concentrate  the  inmost  meaning  of  the  Old 
Testament  revelation  and  of  post-canonical  thoughts.^  They 
are  as  a  flash  of  the  sword  of  that  Word  which  cleaves  even 


1  De  ling,  con/us.  §§  xi.,  xxviii.  (M.ing.  i.  413,  419). 

"^  Leg.  allegg.  iii.  §  25  (Mang.  i.  102). 

3  Dr.  Westrott — who  thinks  that  St.  John  borrowed  the  expyessiofi  (not,  of  course,  the 
doctrine)  from  the  Palestinian  Memra  (whi  :h  always  means  "  word  "  only  1.  not  the  Alexan- 
drian Logos  (which  predominantly  means  Intelligence)— says  that  St.  John's  evangelic  mes- 
sage is  the  complete  fulfilment  of  three  distinct  lines  of  preparatory  revelation— namely,  ;i.) 
"the  Angel  of  the  Presence"  ((ien.  xvxii.  24,  etc.),  (ii.)  the  "Word.'  {Gen.  i.  i.  etc'),  and 
(iii.)  "Wisdom'"  (Prov.  viii.  22,  etc.). 


178  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  the  dividing  asunder  of  sword  and  spirit ;  a  flash  which 
dispels  a  thousand  distorting  mists,  a  sword  to  cleave  the 
knot  of  a  thousand  difficulties,  which  the  Alexandrian  phi- 
losophy vainly  endeavoured  to  cleave  or  to  unloose. 


CHAPTER    XIV, 

PHILONISM,     ALLEGORICAL     EXEGESIS,     AND     THE    CATECHETICAL 
SCHOOL    OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

"  All  things  are  double  one  against  another." — Ecclus.  xVn.  24. 
"  Two  worlds  are  ours  ;.  'tis  only  sin 
Forbids  us  to  descry 
The  mystic  heaven  and  earth  within. 
Plain  as  the  sea  and  sky." — Keble, 

We  have  already  seen  that  St.  Paul  was  acquainted  with 
some  of  the  writings  of  Philo,  or,  at  any  rate,  with  the  ideas 
which  "filled  the  Alexandrian  literature  of  that  epoch,  and  of 
which  Philo  was  an  exponent.'  We  shall  learn,  farther  on, 
that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  w^as  deeply 
imbued  not  only  with  the  phraseology  of  the  great  Alex- 
andrian, but  also  with  the  general  principles  of  his  theology.* 
But  we  shall  see  also  how^  entirely  free  he  is  from  the  de- 
fects and  weakness,  the  unreality  and  the  affectations  of  the 
Philonian  philosophy.  There  is  perhaps  no  more  striking 
proof  of  the  spiritual  gifts  of  the  sacred  writers  than  the 
fact  that  even  when  they  show  to  the  most  marked  degree 
the  influence  of  the  various  forms  of  lifelong  training  to 
which  they  had  been  subjected,  they  rise  superior  to  the 
errors  and  limitations  of  the  very  systems  to  which  they  are 
indebted. 

And  yet  this  *'  Sapiential  literature  of  Alexandria" — the 
literature  which  is  represented  by  the  books  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cus  and  Wisdom  and  in  the  writings  of  Philo — had  a  great 
part  to  play  in  the  development  of  Revelation.  It  worthily 
filled  up  the  interspace  between  Malachi  and  the  earliest 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  Septuagint  created  the  dialect 
and  phraseology  in  which  the  Gospel  was  to  be  proclaimed, 
and  the  Alexandrian  writers,  not  without  heavenly  guidance, 
helped    to   smooth     the     path    which    the    early   Christian 


'  See  Li/e  of  St.  Paul,  i.  642,  643. 

*  It  was  the  observation  of  this  influence  that  led  to  the  Church  legends  that  Philo  for  a 
time  embraced  Christianity  (Photius,  Cod.  cv.),  in  consequence  of  having  met  St.  Peter  at 
Rome  (F.useb.  //.  E.'\\.  17). 


THE  CATECHETICAL  SCHOOL  OF  ALEXANDRIA.       1/9 

thinkers  were  to  tread.  Alexandrianism  was  too  vague,  too 
receptive,  too  little  conscious  of  the  widtli  and  depth  of  the 
chasm  which  separates  Sacred  from  Jewish  literature  ;  but 
in  its  successful  endeavour  to  break  down  the  exclusiveness 
of  Judaism  it  prepared  the  way  for  Christianity  as  the 
universal  revelation,  in  which  there  should  be  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek,  neither  circumcision  nor  uncircumcision,  bar- 
barian, Scythian,  bond  nor  free. 

But,  Avith  all  its  merits,  Philonism  had  obvious  defects. 
The  orthodox  Rabbis  showed  their  shrewdness  when  they 
looked  on  it  with  jealousy  and  suspicion.  It  was  a  system 
of  syncretism,  and  it  swarmed  with  contradictions.  It 
attempted  to  weld  together  two  dissimilar,  if  not  antagon- 
istic, elements — the  letter  of  Scripture  and  the  Platonic 
philosophy.  The  attempt  was  as  unsatisfactory  as  that  of 
the  Schoolmen  to  form  systems  which  combined  Aristotle 
with  the  New  Testament.  Sometimes  the  philosophic  con- 
ception was  sacrificed  to  the  letter  ;  more  frequently  the 
letter  Avas  set  aside  to  make  room  for  the  philosophy.  The 
allegorical  distortion  of  literal  narratives — if  it  be  taken  for 
exegesis — is  almost  ludicrous.  But  the  Judaisers  saw 
clearly  that  the  method  might  be  so  extended  as  to  explain 
away  the  whole  ceremonial  law  ;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  it  was 
so  extended.  The  pride  of  fancied  initiation  made  some  of 
the  Alexandrians  despise  Levitism  just  as  some  of  the 
Gnostics  advanced  so  far  in  their  falsely-called  knowledge 
as  at  last  to  despise  even  the  moral  law.  It  is  a  startling 
comment  on  the  tendency  of  Philo's  speculations  when  we 
find  that  his  nephew  was  an  avowed  renegade. 


But  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  not 
the  only  Christian  w^riter  who  had  been  influenced  by  the 
Philonian  philosophy.  Alexandria  became  from  the  earliest 
days  of  Christianity  the  home  of  a  Christian  school  of 
thought.'  The  Alexandrian  converts  were  confronted  from 
the  first  by  the  same  problems,  and  surrounded  by  the  same 
influences  as  their  Jewish  predecessors.  The  fact  that  their 
teaching  was  carried  on  in  the  midst  of  Pagans  and  philo- 
sophers— men  of  wide  training  and  cultivated  intellect — 
rendered  it  indispensable  for  them  to  present  Christianity 
in  such  a  manner  as  should  neither  repel  their  opponents, 


e'f  apxaiov  e9ovi,  Eiiseb.  //.  J£.  v.  lo. 


I  Go  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

nor  give  them  an  easy  victory  over  ignorant  assertions  and 
futile  anathemas.  From  this  necessity  arose  the  great 
catechetical  School  of  Alexandria,  which  claimed  as  its 
founder  the  Evangelist  St.  Mark.  Its  earliest  teacher  of  any 
fame  was  the  venerable  Pantsenus,  who  is  always  spoken  of 
by  his  successors  with  affection  and  respect.  He  was 
followed  by  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  many  of  whose  in- 
valuable writings  are  still  preserved  to  us.  Clement  was 
followed  by  the  greatest  of  all  the  Fathers,  the  most 
Apostolic  man  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  the  Father  who 
in  every  branch  of  study  rendered  to  the  Church  the  deepest 
and  widest  services — the  immortal  Origen.  Origen  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  pupils  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  to  whom  suc- 
ceeded Pierius,  Theognostus,  Peter  Martyr,  Arius,  and 
Didymus.  This  brings  us  to  the  fourth  century,  after  which 
the  glory  of  the  school  completely  died  away. 

It  was  the  successful  effort  of  these  thinkers  to  prove  to 
the  Gentiles  that  Christianity  in  no  Avise  shunned  the  light 
of  reason,  but  was  always  ready  to  come  forth  into  the 
noonday,  and  to  meet  opponents  with  a  culture  equal  to 
their  own.  They  also  aimed  at  checking  the  Gnostic  vanity, 
which  looked  down  w^ith  contempt  on  the  faith  of  the 
ignorant,  and  prided  itself  on  the  possession  of  esoteric 
mysteries.  These  were  high  and  worthy  ends.  But  it  was 
no  less  necessary  to  show  to  the  zealots  of  a  presumptuous 
religionism  that  if  God  has  no  need  of  human  knowledge, 
He  has  still  less  need  of  human  ignorance  ;  that  a  chastened 
speculation  and  a  Divine  philosophy  were  not  only  per- 
missible, but  necessary  in  the  field  of  Christian  learning  ; 
that  there  was  such  a  thing  as  an  Ethnic  as  well  as  a  Chris- 
tian inspiration  ;  and  that  so  far  from  looking  askance  on 
the  light  which  shone  outside  the  Sacred  Tabernacle,  all 
Christians  should  learn  to  love  and  welcome  it  as  being  a 
ray  from  the  same  inexhaustible  orb  of  glory.'  The  Chris- 
tian scholars  of  Alexandria  chose  as  the  motto  of  their 
school  the  Greek  version  of  Is.  vii.  9,  ^^  If  ye  believe  not,  ye 
shall  never  ii7idersta7idy  The  words,  indeed,  are  not  ac- 
curately translated,  and  are  torn  from  their  context.  This, 
however,  has  been  the  fate  of  nine-tenths  of  the  "texts" 
which  have  been  distorted  into  the  watchwords  of  party 
dogmatism  ;  and  a  misapplication  of  Scripture  is  at  least 
pardonable  when   it  is  applied  to   noble   purposes,  and  not 

1  See  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  ii.  264,  etc 


THE  CATECHETICAL  SCHOOL  OF  ALEXANDRIA.       l8l 

(as  13  so  often  the  case)  to  burn  incense  to  pride  or  add 
fuel  to  hatred.  The  saintly  Catechists  of  Alexandria  used 
their  motto  to  imply  a  twofold  truth — namely,  that  no  one 
could  understand  the  inmost  meaning  of  Judaism  who  did 
not  accept  the  Christian  revelation  ;  and  that  no  one  could 
advance  to  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel  who  did  not  possess 
an  unsophisticated  faith  in  its  initial  principles/ 

In  the  then  stage  of  Scriptural  knowledge  the  Alexan- 
drian teachers  would  have  found  it  difficult  to  defend  many 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  without  the  use  of  allegory.  It 
was  only  by  allegory  that  Philo  had  been  able  to  educe  from 
the  Pentateuch  the  secrets  of  Greek  philosophy.  His 
genius  had  deepened  the  conviction  that  the  Scripture  was 
a  profound  enigma,  in  which  the  simple  narrative  and  the 
obvious  moral  were  all  but  valueless.  But  this  conviction 
was  not  the  growth  of  a  day.  If  the  Alexandrian  Fathers 
derived  it  in  part  from  the  influence  of  Philo,'^  Philo  had 
himself  derived  it  from  predecessors  who  had  invented  that 
mystic  exegesis  which,  in  its  turn,  was  developed  into  the 
system  of  the  Kabbala. 

Taking  the  w^ord  Pardes^  or  ''  Paradise,"  as  their  watch- 
word of  interpretation,  the  Kabbalists  had  declared  that 
every  passage  of  Scripture  was  capable  of  a  fourfold  inter- 
pretation, indicated  by  the  letters  P  R  D  S.  These  letters 
represented  the  words — Peshat^  or  "explanation  ;"  Pe/nez,  or 
"  hint ;"  Danish,  or  "  homily  ;"  Sod,  or  ''  mystery."  In  these 
ways  the  Rabbis  said  that  the  Law  could  be  explained  in 
forty-nine  different  manners.^ 

Panivenus  was  the  earliest  Catechist  who  gave  his  ad- 
hesion to  the  allegoric  method  method,*  and  we  are  told  that 
he  applied  to  the  Church  what  is  written  of  Paradise.  Clem- 
ent vehemently  condemns  carnal  interpretation  (o-ap/aKcos), 
and  says  that  nothing  should  be  deduced  from  Scripture 
but  what  is  perfectly  accordant  with  the  Divine  nature.^  He 
held  that  all  Scriptures,  alike  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, demanded  an  allegoric,  as  well  as  a  literal,  interpre- 
tation, and  he  applied  to  them  the  passage  in  the  Psalms, 
"  I  will  open  my  mouth  in  parables."  °     He  said  that  the 

1  See  Bacon,  Nov.  Organ,  i.  68,  "  ut  non  alius  fere  sit  aditus  ad  regnum  hominis  quod 
fundatur  in  scientiis,  quam  ad  regnum  coelDrum,  in  quod  nisi  sub  ^ersorid  in/antis  intrare 
11011  datjir.''^  2  Philo  is  frequently  quoted  by  Clement  and  Ongen,  as  also  by  Eusebius, 

3  See  my  paper  on  "  Rabbinic  Exegesis"  in  the  ExJ>ositor,  v.  362. 

*  Athenagoras,  who,  perhaps,  preceded  Pantcenus,  was  not  remarkable  in  any  way  as  an 
exegete,  and  he  accepted  Scripture  literally.  He  paid  chief  attention  to  the  Prophets,  and 
strangely  neglected  the  New  Testament.  *  Sirom.  ii.  16. 

«  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2.     Compare  i  Cor.  ii.  6;  Strom,  v.  4;  vi.  15. 


1 83  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY.       _ 

literal  sense  sufficed  for  an  elementary  faith,  but  that  alle- 
ge r)- was  required  for  more  illustrious  knowledge.^  Thus 
he  explains  the  furniture  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  the  story 
of  Agar  and  Sarah,  and  many  other  passages  in  a  Avay  which 
might  have  delighted  Philo.  It  was,  however,  Origen  who 
laid  down  the  express  rule  that  Scripture  consisted  of  the 
visible  and  the  invisible,  as  man  consists  of  the  body  and 
the  soul,  and  that  all  Scripture,  in  order  to  discover  the  in- 
ner soul  and  spirit,  should  be  interpreted  in  a  threefold 
sense — historic,  moral,  and  mystic.^  But  he  did  not  quite 
fling  away  the  literal  sense.  In  proof  of  its  usefulness  he 
appealed  to  the  faith  of  simple  Christians.  Nor  did  he 
ever  proceed  to  allegory  till  he  had  first  ascertained,  by  all 
the  critical  aids  in  his  power,  the  grammatical  meaning  of  the 
passage  on  which  he  was  commenting.  Dionysius,  while 
still  continuing  the  allegorical  method,  leaned  with  greater 
favour  to  moral  interpretation.  Pierius  followed  more 
closely  the  guidance  of  Origen.  It  was  not  till  the  close  of 
the  third  century  that  allegory  was  gradually  abandonded 
by  Peter  Martyr,  and  stiTl  later  by  Didymus,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  growing  influence  of  the  great  School  of  An- 
tioch.^" 

.  The  system  continued,  howeA^er,  to  be  used  not  only  in 
the  Eastern  but  even  in  the  Western  Church.  St.  Jerome 
said  that  to  be  content  with  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture 
was  ''to  eat  dust  like  the  serpent."  The  writings  of  St. 
Hilary  are  full  of  allegorical  fancies.  He  declared  it  irre- 
ligious \.o  take  literally  the  natural  objects  so  exquisitely  de- 
scribed in  Psalm  cxlvi.  By  the  "  fowls  of  the  air  "  in  Matt. 
vi.  he  understands  the  devils,  and  by  the  ''  cities  "  the  angels. 
The  ''two  sparrows"  which  "are  sold  for  one  farthing"  are 
sinners  whose  souls  being  made  to  fly  upwards  sell  them- 
selves for  trifles.  More  than  one  of  the  Fathers  has  ex- 
plained the  Mosaic  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean 
animals  by  saying  that  those  which  divide  the  hoof  repre- 
sent those  who  believe  in  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  those 
which  chew  the  cud  represent  those  who  meditate  on  God's 
Law ;  whereas  the  unclean  animals,  which  neither  divide 
the  hoof  nor  chew  the  cud,  imply  those  who  neither  have 
faith  in  God  nor  study  his  Law.  No  modern  writer  can  at- 
tach the  smallest  value  to  such  inferences  as  these.     But 


'  Strom,  vi.  15.  2  Horn.  V.,  in  Levit.  §  i  ;  De princip.  iv.  11. 

3  See  Gucrike,  De  Schola  Alex.,  and  Vacherot,  Hist,  Crit.  de  I'Ecole  (VAlexaudrie, 
100-303. 


AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       1 83 

thougli  the  day  has  come  when  the  allegorical  method  must 
be  limited  to  rigid  conditions — though  it  is  now  regarded 
as  useless  for  purposes  of  proof,  and  only  valuable  by  way 
of  illustration — we  must  not  forget  that  it  once  played  an 
important  part  in  the  development  of  doctrine,  and  that 
even  the  Sacred  writers  have  furnished  splendid  instances  of 
the  method  in  which  it  may  be  applied.' 


CHAPTER   XV. 

AUTHORSHIP  AND  STYLE  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

"  De  Deo  homo  dixit  et  quidetn  inspiratus  a  Deo,  sed  tamen  homo  ....  non  totum  quod 
est  dixit ;  sed  quod  potuit  homo  dixit." — Aug.  Tract,  in  yoh.  i.  i. 

Such  being,  in  outline,  a  history  of  the  great  school  of  Chris- 
tian philosophy  and  Christian  criticism  in  Alexandria,  we 
may  well  be  thankful  that  one  of  the  Sacred  Books — while 
it  is  the  only  book  of  the  Canon  which  emanated  from  the 
School  of  St.  Paul — bears  the  stamp  of  Alexandrian  thought. 
It  thus  furnishes  one  more  link  of  solid  gold  in  the  conti- 
nuit)^  Avhich  binds  us  to  the  Church  of  the  Jewish  Fathers. 
That  is  a  truly  Catholic  philosophy  which  seeks  to  combine 
all  that  is  precious  and  permanent  in  the  wisdom  of  patri- 
archs and  philosophers,  of  Hellenists  and  Hebraists.  There 
ought  to  be  a  common  sympathy  among  those  who  in  all 
nations  have  loved  the  Lord,  even  when  they  knew  Him 
not :  among  all  who  have — by  His  holy  inspiration — thought 
worth}^  thoughts  respecting  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  man. 

For  ail  true  wisdom  is,  in  its  essence,  Divine  wisdom. 
There  is  a  light  which  lighteth  every  man  who  is  born  into 
the  world.  Even  amid  the  moral  aberrations  of  heathenism 
it  was  granted  to  some — granted,  let  us  trust,  to  many — to 
keep  that  light  unquenched.  I  know  not  whether  any  are 
still  so  narrow  as  to  refuse  all  recognition  of  inspiration  out- 
side the  limits  of  Scripture — any  who  would  still  be  shocked 
by  the  discovery  that  a  Philo,  with  all  his  tedious  allegoris- 
ings  and  cold  abstractions,  was  yet  an  appointed  minister  in 
influencing  the  thoughts  of  an  ApoUos^  and  a  St.  John.     But 

1  On  modern  allegorical  systems,  as  exemplified  in  Swedenborg,  see  Mohler,  Symbolik, 
p.  589  (ed.  1S64). 

'^  It  will  be  seen  farther  on  that  there  are  very  strong  reasons  for  believing  that  Apollos 
wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  I  venture  therefore  to  ask  permission  to  use  his  name  by 
anticipation,  at  least  hypothetically,  in  order  to  avoid  cumbrous  periphrases. 


1 84  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

if  there  be  any  such,  let  them  remember  that  ''''Every  good 
gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above,  and  cometh 
down  from  the  Fatlier  of  lights,  with  Whom  is  no  variable- 
ness nor  shadow  of  turning."  A  Socrates,  a  Plato,  a  Sakya 
Moiuii — these,  too,  had  reared  their  altars  to  ''the  unknown 
God  ; "  these,  too,  were  enabled  to  shed  some  light  on  the 
darkness  of  sin  and  sorrow,  because  they  had  kindled  their 
torches  at  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  and  drawn  some  sparks 
of  light  from  the  unemptiable  fountain  of  Divine  wisdom.^ 
If  it  be  a  fatal  error  to  cut  ourselves  adrift  from  any  age  in 
the  past  history  of  Christianity — if  we  shall  one  day  suffer 
for  having  disowned  our  brotherhood  with  the  Church  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  or  the  Church  of  the  Reformers — so  is  it 
also  an  error  to  dissever  ourselves  from  any  in  the  redeemed 
brotherhood  of  man  who  have  taught  truth,  even  if  it  has 
been  mingled  with  error,  or  who  have  served  God,  even  if 
it  has  not  been  with  the  service  of  the  Sanctuar}'.  Truth  is 
truth,  and  it  comes  from  God,  whether  the  speaker  be  a 
Balaam  or  an  Elijah,  a  Caiaphas  or  a  St.  John.  In  the  mul- 
tiplicity of  parts  and  diversity  of  methods  which  have  char- 
acterised the  deliverance  of  the  one  great  Revelation,  even 
the  heathen  have  borne  their  share.  Verses  quoted  from 
the  Greek  poets  are  to  be  read  on  the  Sacred  page.  Philo 
w^as  deeply  influenced  by  Plato,  and  Philo  in  his  turn  has 
left  on  Christian  Apostles  his  own  vivid  impress.  St.  Paul 
did  not  think  it  necessary  to  apologise  when  he  alluded  to  a 
homely  Latin  fable  ;  the  risen  Lord  of  Glory  did  not  disdain 
to  address  a  Greek  proverb  to  His  erring  saint. 

In  speaking  thus  of  Ethnic  inspiration,  I  am  but  reviv- 
ing— as  I  have  tried  to  do  in  other  instances — a  truth  which 
was  firmly  held  by  tlie  greatest  thinkers  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  but  which,  since  the  days  of  St.  Augustine,  has 
been  forgotten  or  concealed.  The  primitive  doctrine  of  In- 
spiration— as  held  by  Justin  Martyr,  and  by  the  School  of 
Alexandria,  who  freely  appeal  to  the  inspired  testimony  of 
''minds  naturally  Christian" — only  resembles  the  popular 
doctrine  in  the  use  of  similar  terms,  but?»not  in  the  signifi- 
cance which  the  terms  really  bear.  The  Apologists  of  the 
second  century,  and  the  philosophic  Greek  Christians  of  the 

1  Wisd.  vii.  25,  26  :  "  For  she  (Wisdom)  is  the  breath  of  the  power  of  God.  and  a  pure 
influence  flowing  from  the  glory  of  the  Almighty  ;  therefore  can  no  defiled  thing  fall  into  her. 
For  she  is  the  brightness  of  the  everlasting  Hcjht,  the  unspotted  mirror  of  the  power  of  God 
and  the  image  of  His  goodness.  And  being  but  one,  she  can  do  all  things,  and  remaining  in 
herself  she  maketh  all  things  new  ;  and,  in  all  ages,  entering  into  holy  souls^  she  maketh 
them  friends  of  God  and  prophets." 


STYLE    OF   THE    EPISTLE    lO    THE    HEBREWS.         185 

third,  never  hesitated  to  recognise  the  truth  that  the  influ- 
ences (jf  the  Spirit  are  as  the  wind  which  blowetli  where  it 
listctli,  and  that  the  poets  and  philosophers  of  tlie  heathen 
are  often  the  conscious  and  unconscious  exponents  of  His 
inward  voice.  They  held  with  the  much  injured  and  much 
calumniated  Montanus,  whom  Wesley  regarded  as  the  best 
man  of  his  age,  that  the  soul  of  man  is  like  a  lyre,  and  that 
it  breaks  forth  into  music  when  its  strings  are  swept  by  "  the 
plectrum  of  the  Paraclete." 


In  these  remarks  it  may  be  thought  that  I  have  begged 
the  question  by  assuming  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
was  not  written  by  St.  Paul.  This,  how^ever,  is  not  the  case. 
Even  in  the  recognised  w^ritings  of  the  great  Apostle  there 
are  traces  of  thoughts  which  emanated  from  Alexandria.* 
St.  Paul,  after  his  conversion,  certainly  belonged  to  that 
Hagadistic  school  of  Jewish  exegesis'  without  which  there 
would  hardly  have  been  any  room  for  Philo  or  for  any  Hel- 
lenist within  the  narrow  limits  of  Jew^ish  orthodoxy.  Philo 
did  something  towards  breaking  down  that  bristling  hedge 
of  technicalities,  in  the  construction  of  which  so  many  of  the 
Rabbis  intensified  their  Pharisaism,  and  wasted  their  un- 
profitable toil.  Paul  had  been  in  his  earlier  years  a  student, 
and  perhaps  remained  a  student  to  the  last.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  improbability  in  the  conjecture  that  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  Philo's  writings.^  But  even  if  St.  Paul  had 
found  room  in  his  large  heart  for  such  truths  as  God  had 
revealed  to  his  philosophic  contemporary,  not  one  of  his 
Epistles  is  coloured  with  Alexandrian  conceptions  to  any- 
thing like  the  same  extent  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Comparative  criticism  has  made  it  little  short  of  certain  that 
the   Epistle  to  the   Hebrews  was  not  w^ritten  by  St.  Paul. 

-  Even  Philo  appeals  to  older  writings  {crvyypdfj.iJ.aTa  iraXaLuiv  avSpiov),  as  did  also  the 

'i'herapeutae.     (Tholuck,  79. ) 

'■^  See  Lt/e  and  Work  0/ St.  Paul,  i.  639-642  ;  and  Delltzsch,  Commetttar.  Zum  Briefe 

an  die  Hebrdcr,  xxvi.,  xxvii. 

3  The  following  passages  of  St.  Paul  show  familiarity  with  the  Alexandrian  author  of  the 

Wisdom  of  Solomon  : — 

2  Cor.  V.  I,  "The  earthly'Wo\\s&  of  our  tab-  Wisd.  ix.  15,  "The  earthly  tabernacle." 

ernacle." 

Rom.  i.  20,   "The  invisible  things  of  Him  Wisd.  xiil.  i,   "  Who  are  ignorant  of  dod, 

.   .  .  are  clearly  seen,  being  perceived  by  and  could  not  out  of  the  good  things  that 

the  things  that  nre  made.  '  are  seen  know  Him  th.Tt  is." 

Rom.  xiii.  1-7,  "There  is  no  power  but  of  Wisd.  vi.   1-4,  "For  power  is  given    unto 

God  :  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  you  (Kings,  etc.)  from  the  Lord,  and  sov- 

God."  ereignty  from  the  highest." 

See  Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.  223. 


1 86  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

That  science  has  made  gigantic  strides  since  the  days  of  the 
Fathers.  Even  if  the  conclusion  had  been  arrived  at  in  spite 
of  patristic  authority,  it  is  established  on  grounds  too  sure 
to  be  shaken.  But  in  point  of  fact  it  is  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  tenor  of  ancient  evidence.  The  continued  assertion 
of  the  Pauline  authorship  shows  but  too  plainly  to  what  an 
extent  the  manliness  of  criticism  can  be  benumbed  by  the 
paralysis  of  custom.  Adhesion  to  prejudice  is  too  often  mis- 
taken for  love  of  truth. 

I  shall  not  stop  to  show  how  often,  or  by  what  partisans, 
the  external  evidence  has  been  mis-stated.  One  of  the  most 
recent  commentators,  for  instance,  has  prefixed  to  the  Epis- 
tle the  clause  of  Origen,  that  ^'  It  is  not  by  haphazard  that 
ancient  authorities  have  handed  it  down  as  St.  Paul's."  He 
omits  to  inform  us  that  Origen  in  the  very  next  words  says 
that  "  God  only  knows  the  truth  as  to  who  wrote  it,"  and 
that  though  some  of  his  predecessors  had  held  it  to  be  St. 
Paul's,  yet  the  historical  tradition  (laropia)  which  had  come 
to  him  asserted  it  to  be  the  work  of  St.  Clement  or  St.  Luke. 
It  may  be  worth  while,  then,  once  more  to  summarise,  and 
to  put  in  its  true  perspective  the  evidence  of  the  Fathers.^ 

This  evidence  may  be  placed  in  the  Excursus.  But  we 
may  here  most  briefly  summarise  it  by  saying  that  in  spite 
of  the  antiquity  and  authority  of  the  Epistle  no  writer  of  the 
"Western  Church  in  the  first,  second,  or  third  century  quotes 
it  as  St.  Paul's  ;  that  the  first  Latin  writer  who  attributes  it 
to  St.  Paul  is  Hilary,  late  in  the  fourth  century  ;  and  that 
in  the  fifth  century  both  St.  Jerome  and  St.  Augustine, 
though  loosely  quoting  it  as  St.  Paul's,  had  serious  misgiv- 
ings about  its  direct  genuineness.  In  the  Eastern  Church, 
Pantaenus  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  seem  to  have  set  the 
fashion  of  accepting  the  Pauline  authorship  ;  ^  but  on  this 
subject  even  Origen  felt  grave  doubts.  Eusebius  wavered 
about  it,  and  admitted  that  the  Epistle  was  accounted  spuri- 
ous by  many,  but  thought  that  it  might  perhaps  be  a  trans- 
lation from  an  Aramaic  original.  Even  in  the  Eastern 
Church  it  did  not  meet  with  unhesitating  acceptance  as  a 
work  of  St.  Paul. 

A  Jewish  rule,  which  has  found  unconscious  acceptance 
in  all  ages,  says  that  "Custom   is  as  Law."'     But  if  the 

»  See  Excursus  VIII,  on  the  "Patristic  Evidence  as  to  the  Authorship  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews."  ^  See  Routh,  Tie/.  Sacr.  i.  472,  480. 


STYLE   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.         1 8/ 

Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  owes  its  recognition  among  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  far  more  to  an  unthinking  custom  than 
to  careful  argument,  how  is  it  that  such  a  custom  arose  ? 
The  answer  is  simple.  It  arose  mainly  in  the  Eastern  Church^ 
from  the  initiative  of  Pantaenus,  and  it  was  only  accepted 
in  the  Western  Church,  after  considerable  hesitation,  by  the 
force  of  example.  In  both  Churches  it  originated  not  from 
trustworthy  tradition,  but  from  the  superficial  acceptance  of 
prinid  facie  phenomena.  The  general  theology  of  the  Epis- 
tle was  Pauline,  and  the  finer  differences  escaped  notice. 
Many  characteristic  phrases  coincided  with  those  in  St. 
Paul's  Epistles,  and  were  current  in  his  school  of  thought. 
The  allusions  at  the  close  of  the  Epistle  led  to  the  careless 
assumption  that  they  were  penned  by  St.  Paul.  The  ob- 
servation of  similarities  is  easy  to  any  one  ;  the  detection  of 
differences,  which,  however  deep,  are  yet  to  some  extent 
latent,  is  only  possible  to  students  who  do  not  rely  upon 
authority  and  tradition,  except  so  far  as  they  are  elements 
in  the  sacred  search  for  truth.  Nothing  can  more  decisively 
prove  tlie  incompetence  of  a  mechanical  concensus  than  the 
fact  that  millions  of  readers  have  failed  to  perceive,  even  in 
the  original,  the  dissimilarity  of  style,  of  method,  and  of 
theologic  thought,  which  proves  that  the  same  pen  could 
not  have  written,  nor  the  same  mind  have  originated,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrew^s  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Luther 
showed  his  usual  insight  and  robust  sense  when  he  saw  that 
Heb.  ii.  3  could  not  have  been  written  by  the  author  of  Gal. 
i.  I,  12.  Again,  though  the  authc^r  does  not  fall  into  any  de- 
monstrable error  in  his  allusions  to  the  details  of  Temple 
worship  in  vii.  27,  ix.  3,  4,  x.  11 — yet  he  goes  to  the  verge 
of  apparent  inaccuracies,  against  which  St.  Paul,  who  was 
familiar  with  the  Temple  service,  would  surely  have  guarded 
himself.  In  reading  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we  are  in 
contact  with  the  mind  of  a  great  and  original  wn-iter  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  whose  name  escaped  discovery  till  modern 
times. 

It  is  hardly  worth  -while  to  quote  later  authorities.  They 
can  have  no  effect  but  to  impose  upon  the  ignorant.  They 
simply  fioat  with  the  stream.  They  are  uncritical,  and 
therefore  valueless.  When  such  writers  as  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria and  Origen  in  the  Eastern  Church,  and  Jerome  and 
Augustine  in  the  Western  Church,  had  made  timid  conces- 
sions to  the  custom  of  popularly  quoting  the  Epistle  as  St. 
Paul's,  it  was  natural  that  later  writers  should   follow  their 


1 88  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

example.  Gradually,  by  the  aid  of  conciliar  decrees,*  pre- 
valent assumption  hardened  into  ecclesiastical  conviction. 
The  result  of  the  evidence  may  be  summed  up  by  saying 
-that,  as  far  as  the  evidence  of  antiquity  is  concerned,  loose 
conjecture  tended  in  one  direction  and  genuine  criticism  in 
the  other.  It  is  astonishing  that  any  one  should  attach  im- 
portance to  the  conventional  allusions  of  writers  who  neither 
discussed  nor  considered  the  question.  That  this  or  that 
Father  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  introduces  a  quotation 
from  the  Epistle  with  the  words  "St.  Paul  says"  is  of  no 
more  consequence  than  when  this  or  that  clergyman  an- 
nounces a  lesson  or  a  sermon  from  ''  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  Hebrews."  Such  "  patristic  authorities  "  are,  for  any 
c?-itical  purpose,  not  worth  the  paper  on  which  they  are 
written.  The  acceptance  of  a  current  A'iew  by  a  writer  who 
has  not  examined  the  question  has  no  evidential  weight, 
even  if  that  author  be  an  Athanasius  or  a  Theodoret. 

But  among  thoughtful  writers  who  really  turned  their 
attention  to  the  matter  the  old  doubts  on  the  subject  were 
by  no  means  extinguished.  In  the  Western  Church  the 
Epistle  was  not  publicly  read  to  the  same  extent  or  on  the 
same  footing  as  the  others,  even  at  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century.  The  assertion  that  it  was  written  by  St.  Paul  was 
sometimes  accompanied  with  modifications,  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. It  had  never  been  commented  on  by  any  Latin  writer 
as  late  as  the  sixth.  In  the  seventh,  Isidore  of  Seville  re- 
cords that  many  still  attributed  it,  at  least  in  part,  to  Barna- 
bas or  Clement  "  because  of  the  discrepancy  of  style."  Even 
in  the  ninth  it  is  entirely  omitted  by  the  Codex  Boerneri- 
anus  (G),  and  only  appears  in  a  Latin  translation  in  the 
celebrated  F,  the  Codex  Augiensis.  But  long  before  the 
ninth  century,  and  for  centuries  afterwards,  the  'science  of 
criticism  was  forgotten.  St.  Thomas  of  Aquinum,  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  repeats  the  old  objections  in  order  to 
refute  them  by  the  old  arguments  ;  but  all  doubt  on  the 
subject  was  lulled  to  sleep  by  the  spell  of  ecclesiastical  in- 
fallibility. Then  came  the  reviving  dawn  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  when  ''Greece  rose  from  the  dead  with  the  New 
Testament  in  her  hand."  At  that  epoch  even  Roman  Cath- 
olic writers  like  Ludovicus  Vives  and  Cardinal  Cajetan  ven- 

1  The  first  Synod  which  used  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  Pauline  was  that  of  Antioch, 
A.D.  264,  which  was  summoned  to  correct  the  errors  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  It  is  placed  tenth 
among  .St.  Paul's  Epistles  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  a.d.  363  {Can.  60).  This  canon  ap- 
pears to  be  genuine  (Wicseler,  i.  23),  though  not  above  suspicion.  (Credner,  Gesch.  d. 
Kanon,  -zx  fg.) 


STYLE    OF   THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.         1 89 

tured  to  point  out  the  uncertainty  which  had  been  felt  by 
Origen,  Jerome,  and  even  Augustine.  Erasmus,  while  con- 
fessing his  willingness  to  accept  any  certain  definition  of 
the  Church  on  the  subject,  yet  quotes  some  of  the  Fathers 
to  show  the  absurdity  of  the  pseudo-orthodoxy  which  con- 
demned a  man  as  ^'  plusquam  heretical  "  if  he  doubted  about 
tlie  authorship  of  this  Epistle.  His  own  opinion  was  that 
St.  Paul  did  not  write  it.^  •  Luther  calls  attention  to  its  style, 
and  quotes  various  passages  ^  to  show  that  it  cou/d  not  have 
been  written  by  St.  Paul,  or  by  any  Apostle.  While  speak- 
ing of  it  with  admiration  as  "a  strong,  mighty,  and  lofty 
Epistle,"  he  considers  that  its  Scriptural  method  indicates 
the  authorship  of  Apollos,  and  says  that  at  any  rate  it  is  the 
work  of  '*  an  excellent  apostolic  man."^  Calvin,  again — 
while,  like  some  of  the  Fathers,  he  popularly  quotes  it  as 
"the  Apostle's" — says  that  he  cannot  be  induced  to  recog- 
nise it  as  St.  Paul's  because  it  differs  from  him  in  its  st3de 
and  method  of  teaching,  and  because  the  writer  speaks  of 
himself  as  a  pupil  of  the  Apostle's,^  a  thing  very  alien  from 
St.  Paul's  custom.^  Melancthon  never  quotes  it  as  St.  Paul's. 
The  Magdeburg  Centuriators  denied  that  it  w^as  his.  Grotius 
and  Limborch  and  Le  Clerc  supposed  it  to  have  been  writ- 
ten by  St.  Luke,  Apollos,  or  some  companion  of  St.  Paul. 

Then  for  a  time  the  tyranny  of  indolent  custom  began 
once  more  to  reassert  itself.  During  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, and  long  afterwards,  especially  in  England,  no  one, 
without  incurring  dislike  and  suspicion,  could  hint,even  apol- 
ogetically, at  any  doubt  as  to  w^hether  the  translators  of  the 
English  Bible  were  in  the  right  when  they  headed  the  Epis- 
tle with  the  superscription,  ''The  Epistle  of  Paul  the 
Apostle  to  the  Hebrews.""     But  since  the  time  of  Semler 

1  "  Quod  ad  sensum  meum  attinet,  non  videtur  illius  esse,  ob  causas  quas  hie  reticuisse 
praestiterit." — Erasm.  Opp.  vi.  1024.  ^  ii-  3  ;   vi.  4,  seq.  ;  x.  26,  seq.  ;  xii.  17. 

3  He  only  gives  it  precedence  over  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude.  "  Lutherus  earn  sim- 
pliciter  rejicit  atque  ila  fere  sentiunt  Lutherani." — Gerhard  (t  1637),  Comjtieftt.  p.  10. 

4  Heb.  ii.  3. 

0  Gal.  i.  11-15  ;  ii.  6 ;  i  Cor.  ix.  i  ;  xi.  23  ;  Eph.  iii.  2,  etc.  See  Calvin,  ad  Heb.  ii.  3; 
xii.  13. 

6  "  St.  Paul  saith  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Hebrews  "  (Office  for  the  Visitation  oj 
the  Sick).  "  Marriage  is  commended  of  St.  Paul  to  be  honourable  of  all  men  "  (Heb.  xiii.  4), 
(Office  Forvt  for  the  Solemnisation  0/ Matrimony).  Such  accidental  allusions  arc  in  no 
sense  authoritative.  This  is  exactly  a  question  on  which  Councils  and  Churches  are  very 
fallible,  and  have  no  authority  beyond  that  which  they  derive  from  the  study  and  research  of 
their  individual  members.  These  obiter  dicta  have  no  more  weight  in  proving  tlie  Pauline 
authorship  than  the  insertions  of  i  John  v.  7  in  the  English  version  has  weight  in  deciding  on 
the  authenticity  of  that  passage.  On  such  matters  the  Church  of  the  seventeenth  century  was 
less  qualified  to  decide  than  the  Church  of  the  nineteenth  ;  and  if  the  learned  divines  of  the 
Church  were  now  called  upon  for  an  opinion,  the  preponderance  against  the  Pauline  author- 
ship would  be  overwhelming.  To  use  such  casual  allusions  as  though  they  were  decisive,  in 
this  and  similar  discussions,  is  one  of  the  most  unworthy— and  therefore,  alas  I  one  of  the  com- 
monest—forms of  the  reductio  ad horribile  and  the  mentitm  ad  ifividiam. 


igO  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

(1763)  many  eminent  writers  have  practically  set  the  ques- 
tion at  rest  by  furnishing  the  results  of  that  close  examina- 
tion, which  prove  not  only  that  St.  Paul  was  not  the  actual 
writer  of  the  Epistle — a  fact  which  had  been  patent  even  in 
the  days  of  Origen — but  that  it  is  not  even  indirectly  due  to 
his  authorship.  The  phraseology  has  been  passed  through 
a  fresh  mint,  and  the  thoughts  have  been  subjected  to  the 
crucible  of  another  individuality. 

It  will,  therefore,  serve  no  purpose  to  heap  up  words 
and  phrases  which  are  common  to  the  author  and  to  St. 
Paul.*  Many,  indeed,  of  those  which  have  been  adduced 
belong  to  the  current  coin  of  Christian  theology.  Those 
that  are  distinctiv^ely  Pauline  only  prove  a  point  which  every- 
one is  ready  to  concede,  that  the  writer  had  adopted  much 
of  the  Apostle's  teaching,  and,  had  been  deeply  influenced 
by  his  companionship.  It  is  this  very  fact  which  throws 
into  relief  the  positive  dissimilarities.  The  more  we  read 
such  books  as  Mr.  Forster's  Apostolical  Authority  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews^  ^'the  closer,"  says  Alford,  *'  becomes  the 
connexion  in  faith  and  feeling  of  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
and  St.  Paul,  but  the  more  absolutely  incompatible  the  per- 
sonal identity  ;  the  more  we  perceive  all  that  region  of 
thought  and  feeling  to  have  been  in  common  between  them 
which  mere  living  together,  talking  together,  praying  to- 
gether would  naturally  range  in  ;  but  all  that  region  wherein 
individual  peculiarity  is  wont  to  put  itself  forth,  to  have 
been  entirely  distinct." 

Again,  it  is  vain  to  talk  about  difference  of  subject  or 
difference  of  aim  as  furnishing  any  explanation  of  these  dis- 
similarities. We  have  writings  of  St.  Paul  on  ail  kinds  of 
topics,  and  at  all  ages  of  his  mature  life  ;  and  though  the 
style  of  a  writer  may  vary  in  different  moods,  as  the  style  of 
St.  Paul  in  tlie  Epistle  to  tlie  Ephesians  differs  from  that  in 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  yet  every  style  retains  a  certain  stamp 
of  individuality.  Now,  the  differences  between  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  differences 
which  go  down  to  the  roots  of  the  being.  That  the  same 
pen  should  have   been  engaged  on  both  is  a  psychological 

1  Some  of  these  may  be  seen  collected  by  Tholuck  and  Bishop  V/ordsworth  in  their  intro- 
ductions to  the  Epistle,  as  also  in  the  editions  of  Stuart  and  Forster.  Any  one  will  see  at  a 
glance  tiie  large  sifting  they  require.  I  sulyoin  some  of  the  most  striking — i  Thess.  i.  3, 
"unceasingly  making  mention  of  your  work  of  faith  and  labour  of  love  :  "  Heb.  vi.  10,  "  God- 
is  not  unjust  to  forget  your  loork  and  love  ;  "  Rom.  xii.  18,  ''  if  possible,  beins:  at  peace 
with  all  men;"  Heb.  xii.  14,  " Folloiv  peace  with  all.''  Compare  also  Heb.  xiii.  18  with 
2  Cor.  iv.  2 :  Heb.  x.  30  with  Rom.  xii.  19  ;  Heb.  ii.  10  with  Rom.  xi.  36 ;  and  Heb.  xiii.  30 
with  Rom.  xv.  33. 


STYLE   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.        I9I 

impossibility.  The  Greet:  is  (ar  better  than  the  Greek  of 
St.  Paul'  St.  Paul  is  often  stately  and  often  rhetorical, 
and  sometimes. writes  more  in  the  style  of  a  treatise  than  of 
a  letter  ;  but  the  stateliness  and  rhetoric  and  systematic 
treatment  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  no  way  resemble 
his.  The  form  and  rhythm  of  its  sentences  are  wholly  dif- 
ferent. Paul  is  often  impassioned  and  often  argumentative, 
and  so  is  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  but  the 
passion  and  the  dialectics  of  the  latter  furnish  the  most 
striking  contrast  to  those  of  the  former.  The  writer  cites 
diiferently  from  St.  Paul  ;  '^  he  writes  differently  ;  he  argues 
differently  ;  he  thinks  differently  ;  he  declaims  differently  ; 
he  constructs  and  connects  his  sentences  differently  ;  ^  he 
builds  up  his  paragraphs  on  a  wholly  different  model.  St. 
Paul  is  constantly  mingling  two  constructions,  leaving  sen- 
tences uniinished,  breaking  into  personal  allusions,  substi- 
tuting the  syllogism  of  passion  for  the  syllogism  of  logic. 
This  writer  is  never  ungrammatical  ;  he  is  never  irregular  ; 
he  is  never  personal ;  he  never  strviggles  for  expression  ;  he 
never  loses  himself  in  a  parenthesis  ;  he  is  never  hurried 
into  an  anacoluthon.*  His  style  is  the  style  of  a  man  of  ge- 
nius who  thinks  as  well  as  whites  in  Greek:  whereas  St. 
Paul  wrote  in  Greek,  but  thought  in  Syriac.  The  writings 
of  both  have  the  indefinable  stamp  of  distinction  ;  but  the 
distinction  of  Apollos  is  marked  by  a  less  burning  passion,- 
and  a  more  absolute  self-control.  The  notion  that  the  Epis- 
tle is  a  translation  may  be  set  aside.  It  only  arose  from  a 
desire  to  save  the  Pauline  authorship  while  accounting  for 
the  glaring  differences  of  style.     The  fact  of  its  acceptance 

'  This  does  not  exclude  Hebraisms,  because  lexical  Hebraisms  (such  as  kAtjp<wo/uios, 
o'lKOvixevri  fxeWovaa,  ayia^etv,  crapf  Koi  al/xa,  k.t.A. )  were  inwoven  into  the  theological 
language  of  Christianity;  but  the  majority  of  the  grajfimatical  "Hebraisms"  in  Prof. 
Stuart's  list  are  not  Hebraisms  at  all,  or  are  reminiscences  of  Old  Testament  expressions  (see 
Tholuck,  Koinvzeiit.  26-30).  Bleek  and  Tholuck  select  six  special  peculiarities  of  style — i. 
Trie  constant  use  of  7ra.5,  "all;"  2.  The  intransitive  use  of /ca0i<,"eii',  "  sit"  (i.  3  ;  viii.  i,  etc.)  ; 
3.  The  use  of  eafTrep,  "even  though,"  where  St.  Paul  always  uses  ctye,  "if  at  least;"  4. 
6^€V,  in  the  sense  of  "wherefore;"  5.  €i?  to  fitrjve/ces,  "to  perpetuity,"  and  eis  to  t:o.VTeKi<i 
(Heb.  vii.  3,  10,  25,  etc.)  for  St.  Paul's  TravTOTe,  "always,"  which  is  not  a  good  Greek  word  ; 
6.  The  use  of  irapd  and  vTrep  after  comparatives. 

2  He  follows  the  LXX.,  and  usually  the  Alexandrian  form  of  it,  even  where  it  differs  from 
the  Hebrew  (i.  8,  9;  ii.  7  ;  x.  5-7,  30,  37-38  ;  xi.  21 ;  xiii.  5)  ;  whereas  St,  Paul  often  reverts 
to  the  Hebrew,  and  his  citations  agree  with  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  LXX.  See  this  demon- 
strated by  Bleek,  Der  Brief  an  d.  Hebr.  338,  seq.  ;  Tholuck,  Kommeni.  55.  And  he  intro- 
duces his  quotations  all  but  invariably,  not  by  "  as  it  is  written,"  "  the  Scripture  saith,"  or 
"  David  so  saith,"  but  by  "  He  saith,"  or  "  the  Holy  Spirit  cr  God  saith  or  beareth  witness,"  - 
etc.  (i.  5,  6  ;   iii.  7,  15  ;  iv.  3,  4  ;  v.  5  ;  vi.  14  ;  vii.  14,  21  ;  viii.  5,  8,  etc.). 

3  Fap,  TOiYopoOt',  Kai  yap,  Tolvvv,  610,  aAAot  qv  (ii.  16  and  iii.  16)  ;  ciTa  (xii.  9)  ;  S^jtow 
(ii.  16).     See  Bleek,  i.  330. 

*  How  totally  unlike  St.  Paul's  rugi^ed  impetuosity  is  the  calm  and  masterly  grasp  over 
the  grammar  in  the  splendid  paragraph  of  xii.  1*8-24,  it^  spite  of  its  double  parentheses  !  Sc 
Paul  would  have  made  shipwreok  of  the  grammar  m  such  a  sentence. 


192  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

by  writer  after  writer  ^  shows  that  criticism  had  little  to 
do  with  deciding  on  the  peculiarities  of  the  letter.  The 
quotations  from  the  Septuagint  even  where  it  differs  from 
the  Hebrew,  the  structure  of  the  sentences,  and  even  the 
use  of  the  two  senses  of  the  word  diatheke,  are  sufficient  to 
prove  that  the  letter  was  written  in  Greek.  A  translation 
may  be  very  able,  but  it  can  never  bear  upon  its  surface  such 
marks  of  originality  as  we  find  in  this  Epistle.  Its  elo- 
quence belongs  to  the  language  in  which  it  is  composed.* 
It  is  as  unlike  the  eloquence  of  the  LXX.  translators  when 
they  are  rendering  into  Greek  the  promises  and  denuncia- 
tions of  the  Hebrew  prophets  as  it  is  possible  to  conceive. 
It  is  full  of  paronomasiae  and  plays  of  words  which  could 
have  had  no  meaning  or  parallel  in  Hebrew.^  It  abounds  in 
words  which,  while  they  have  not  the  startling  life  of  St. 
Paul's — while  they  are  neither  half-battles  nor  '^creatures 
with  hands  and  feet " — are  yet  terse,  beautiful,  and  essen- 
tially Greek.*  It  could  not  have  been  a  version  from  an 
Aramaic  original.  If  then  the  Greek  be  the  Greek  of  the 
original  author,  it  is  wholly  unlike  St.  Paul's  Greek.  It 
was  not  in  St.  Paul's  nature  to  be,  as  this  writer  is,  ''  elabo- 
rately and  faultlessly  rhetorical."  St.  Paul,  as  I  have  shown 
elsewhere,  has  his  own  style  of  rhetoric,  breathless,  impet- 
uous, bursting  out  like  a  lava  stream  of  spontaneous  passion. 
But  never  under  any  circumstance  does  St.  Paul  use  rheto- 
ric for  its  own  sake.  Never  does  he  look  out  for  expressions 
which  shall  merely  please  by  their  own  sonorous  majesty. 
Never  does  he  indulge  in  the  balanced  equilibrium  of  eupho- 
nious clauses.  His  expressions  are  never  leisurely.  The 
movement  of  this  author  is  that  of  an  Oriental  sheikh  with 
his  robes  of  honour  wrapped  around  him  ;  the  movement  of 
St.  Paul  is  that  of  an  athlete  girded  for  the  race.  The  rhet- 
oric of  this  writer,  even  when  it  is  at  its  most  majestic  vol- 
ume, is  like  tlie  smooth  flow  of  a   river  amid  green  fields  ; 

1  Eusebius,  Jerome,  Theodoret,  Euthalius,  (Ecumenius,  Theophylact,  etc.,  and  down  to 
Thomas  Aquinas. 

2  Thus  Pliilastrius  [Haer.  89)  says  of  some,  "In  eS  (epistola]  quia  rhetorice  scripsit,  ser- 
mone  plausibih',  inde  non  putant  esse  ejusdem  apostoli."  The  emphatic  and  sounding  uses  of 
the  hyperljaton  in  vii.  4  (the  position  of  6  TraTpiapxi?)  could  not  be  paralleled  in  St.  Paul ; 
nor  the  strikingly  effective  collocation  of  words  in  the  very  first  sentence,  in  xii.  i,  2  ;  ix.  11, 
12,  etc. 

3  i.  I,  TroAvjtxepw?  kcxi  TroAvrpoTTO)?  :  ii.  5-8,  virera^ev  .  .  .  avviroTaKTOv  .  .  .  vnOTeTayfJ-eva; 
V.  8,  efxaOev  a<\>  Siv  enaOev ;  v.  14,  koXov  re  Koi  KaKOv  ;  ix.  8,  inl  /Spci/otocrii'  Koi  irofj-aaiv ;  xiii. 
14,  fjievovcrav  .  .  .  /ue'AAovo-av  ;  ix.  15,  StaOriKri  (in  two  senses,  "a  covenant"  and  "a  will")  ; 
vii.  39,  ixeriaxv^ff  ■  •  ■  irpoaiaxv^ey  ;  x.  29,  tfyqadfJiei'O^  .  .  .  r/yiacr^rj ;  xi.  9,  napwKrjaev 
.  .  .  KaroKcijaas  ;  xu'i.  2,  €7n\ai'd6.i'eade  .  .  .  e\a9ov  ;  and  many  instances  of  plays  on  com- 
pound words  (ii.  8  :  vii.  23,  24  ;  viii.  7,  8  ;  ix.  28),  besfdes  numerous  rhetorical  assonances 
(vii.  19,  22  :  X.  29.  34,  38,  39,  etc.). 

*  i.  3,  anavyaafjia  ;   xii.  i,  ewwepiaTaTOs  ;    v.  2,  fieTpLonaOfiv. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       193 

the  rhetoric  of   St.  Paul  is  like  the  rush  of  a  mountain  tor- 
rent amid  opposing  rocks. 

The  idiosyncrasy  of  the  writer  is  seen  in  his  fondness  for 
amplitude  and  rotundity  of  expression.  Where  St.  Paul 
uses  "reward"  {??iisthos)  his  ear  requires  '' recompense  of 
reward  "  {7?nsthapodosia)  ;  where  St.  Paul  would  have  been 
content  with  the  word  "blood"  {hai??ia)  he  requires  "shed- 
ding of  blood  "  {Jiaimatecchiisid)  ;  where  St.  Paul  has  "oath  " 
(Iiorkos)  he  uses  the  fuller  and  rounder  Jiorkoinosia.  St.  Paul 
thrice  employs  the  expression  "sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  ; "  this  writer,  perhaps  also  with  a  touch  of  the  Alex- 
andrian dislike  of  anthroponiorphism,  thrice  amplifies  it  into 
sat  ^  "  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  ihe  highest^''  or  "  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God,"  or  "on  the  right  hand 
of  the  thro7ie  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens^  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  Christ  as  "  the  image  of  God,"  this  writer  as  "  the  efful- 
gence of  the  glory  and  impress  of  the  hypostasis  of  God."  ^ 
AH  rhis  arises  from  his  love  for  "  musical  euphony."  On 
the  other  hand,  St.  Paul  rarely  speaks,  as  this  writer  usually 
does,  of  our  Lord  as  "Jesus,"  or  "the  Lord,"  or  "Christ," 
but  rather  of  "our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  "Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord."  ^  The  variation  is  remarkable,  but  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  as  time  went  on  the  names  "  Christ  "  and  "Jesus" 
became  to  all  Christians  so  connotative  of  the  Supremest 
exaltation  as  no  longer  to  need  that  addition  or  description 
which  had  become  familiar  to  the  earlier  converts. 


CHAPTER  XVL 

THEOLOGY    OF    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE     HEBREWS. 

"  Oh,  that  I  knew  how  all  Thy  lights  combine, 

And  the  configurations  of  their  glorie, 

Seeing  not  only  how  each  verse  doth  shine, 

But  all  the  constellations  of  the  storie." 

G.  Herbert. 

But  the  importance  of  all  these  differences,  great  as  it  is, 
sinks  into  insignificance  when  we  consider  the  deep  distinc- 
tions which  exist  between  the  theological  co7iceptions  of  St. 
Paul  and  those  of  thp  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

'  Ka9('^en/,  "to  sit,"  is  intransitive  in  Heb.  i.  3  ;  viii.  i  ;  x.  12  ;  xii.  2.  In  St.  Paul  it  is 
alwavs  transitive,  '"  to  seat." 

2  See  Aiford,  IV.  i.  p.  79.  _ 

^  These  compound  forms  occur  sixty-eight  times  in  St  Paul,  and  even  "our  I/ord  Jesus" 
only  once  in  the  Hebrews. 

13 


194  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF  CHRISTIANITY.  ' 

There  is,  it  need  scarcely  be  said,  no  contradiction,  any 
more  than  there  is  a  contradiction  between  the  theology 
of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  ;  but  there  is  a  dissimilarity 
so  marked  that,  as  St.  Paul  could  not  have  written 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  without  a  radical  change  of 
style  and  individuality,  so  neither  could  he  have  written  it 
without  completely  shifting  the  perspective  and  the  inter- 
relations of  the  truths  which  he  habitually  taught.  These 
facts  are  so  interesting,  so  convincing,  so  intrinsically  im- 
portant, and  so  frequently  overlooked  that  they  deserve  the 
reader's  most  careful  consideration. 

(i.)  That  the  writer  was  of  the  School  oi  St.  Paul  we 
have  said  already,  and  accordingly  we  find  him  dwelling  on 
three  cardinal  topics  of  the  Pauline  theology,  namely,  (i) 
the  contrast  between  Judaism  and  Christianity,  (2)  the 
saving  efficacy  of  faith,  and  (3)  the  redemptive  w^ork  of  Christ. 
But  the  fourth  great  topic  of  St.  Paul's  teaching — namely, 
the  Universality  of  the  Gospel  as  offered  to  all  men,  and  to 
the  Gentile  in  no  less  degree  than  to  the  Jew — is  con- 
spicuously absent  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

"  The  people  "  is  to  our  author  repeatedly,  and,  so  far  as  this 
Epistle  is  concerned,  exclusively,  the  Chosen  People.^  The 
Gentiles  are  ignored.  The  word  "  Gentiles  "  does  not  occur 
in  the  Epistle  ;  and  the  writer  speaks  as  though  there  were 
no  such  thing  as  a  pagan  in  the  world."  No  one,  surely, 
can  refuse  to  recognise  this  phenomenon,  or  will  think  that 
it  is  sufficiently  explained  by  saying  that  the  Epistle  is 
"addressed  to  the  Hebrews."  That  might  account  for  the 
absence  of  any  discussion  of  the  relations  between  the  two 
unfused,  and  even  half-discordant,  elements  of  the  Christian 
Church  ;  but  St.  Paul,  with  whom  the  offer  of  salvation  to 
the  Gentiles  was  the  most  essential  element  of  "his  Gos- 
pel,"^ could  not  haA'e  excluded  every  allusion  to  them,  how- 
ever remote.  Had  he  done  so  by  w^ay  of  deference  to  Jewish 
prejudices,  it  would  have  been  a  concession  altogether  un- 
worthy. That  this  writer  accepted  the  call  of  the  Gentiles 
we  do  not  dispute  ;  had  he  not  done  so  he  could  not  have 
been,  as  he  so  evidently  was,  a  friend  and  adherent  of  the 


'  .'.9  ^'*°5»  ^'  3  i  V''-  5.  ".  27  ;  viii.  lo  ;  ix.  7,  19  ;  x.  30  ;  xi.  25.  See  especially  ii.  17  ;  iv. 
9  ;  xiii.  12.  In  this  sense  the  writer  (as  we  should  have  suppbsed  a  priori)  is  a  Jewish  Chris- 
tian :  but  he  is  a  Jewish  Christian  of  a  larpe  and  liberal  type,  and  he  does  not  utter  one  word 
which  is  antagonistic  to  the  great  spiritual  conceptions  of  St.  Paul.  He  dwells  emphatically 
on  the  imperfection  of  Judaism  {a<T9€ve<;.  .  .  ai-ux^eAe?)  ;  places  Abraham  below  Melchize- 
dec ;  does  not  dwell  on  Christ  either  as  the  Jewish  Messiah,  or  as  the  Son  of  David  ;  and 
places  the  attainment  of  salvation  in  faithful  endurance,  not  in  obedience  to  the  Law. 

2  See  Reuss,  Theol.  Ckrit.  ii,  289.  3  Eph.  iiu  4-S. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       I95 

great  Apostle.  But  it  was  not  a  topic  of  which  his  thoughts 
were  full  to  overflowing,  as  were  the  thoughts  of  St.  Paul. 
It  was  not  a  truth  for  the  sake  of  which  he  had  spent,  amid 
combat,  calumny,  and  persecution,  the  best  years  of  his  life. 
His  thoughts  were  so  exclusively  occupied  with  the 
Hebrews,  that  he  even  speaks  of  the  Incarnation  as  a  taking 
hold  not  of  humanity,  but  of  Abraham's  seed.  ^  It  is,  per- 
haps, this  circumstance  which  has  robbed  us  of  that  enquiry 
into  the  position  of  Heathenism  in  the  Divine  economy, 
which  would  not  only  have  had  an  intense  interest,  but 
would  have  completed  for  us  the  now  imperfect  scheme  of 
wdiat  may  be  called  the  philosophy  of  historic  religion. 

But  while  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  had 
evidently  embraced  the  views  of  St.  Paul,  how  differently 
does  he  handle  tlie  three  great  themes  which  he  has  in  com- 
mon with  his  predecessor !  His  whole  Epistle  deals  with 
the  relations  betivecn  Christianity  and  Judaism^  but  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether,  at  earlier  stages  of  the  controversy,  St.  Paul 
would  have  thought  it  expedient  to  adopt  his  line  of  argu- 
ment. It  is  one  which  w^as  in  itself  admirably  suited  to 
pacify  the  furious  indignation  of  his  Jewish  opponents  ;  but 
rougher  and  sterner  work  had  to  be  done  before  it  could  be 
profitably  employed.  Jewish  exclusiveness  had  taken  refuge 
in  what  they  regarded  as  the  impregnable  fortress  of  Levi- 
tism  ;  and  it  was  necessary  to  batter  down  that  fortress  with 
many  a  rude  shock  of  argument  before  the  Apostle  could 
pause  to  show  the  beauty  and  past  usefulness  of  its  walls  and 
towers.  Similarly  there  can  be  no  question  that  the  Papacy 
had  in  its  day  rendered  magnificent  services  to  the  cause  of 
civilization  ;  but  it  is  scarcely  from  the  Reformers  that  we 
should  have  expected  a  demonstration  that  it  did  so.  It 
was  their  appointed  task  to  show  the  dangerous  elements 
which,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  had  rendered  it  necessary 
to  emancipate  mankind  from  its  oppressive  sway.  There  is 
force  and  truth  in  the  arguments  of  De  Maistre,  but  it  was 
not  a  Luther  who  could  be  expected  to  originate  them. 

The  specific  character  of  the  argument  cannot  be  more 
briefly  described  than  by  saying,  as  we  have  said  already, 
that  it  is  Alexandrian.  It  is  not  only  Alexandrian  in  its 
learning  and  culture,'^  but  has  its  bases  in  the  Alexandrian 
theosophy,  and  appeals  for  support  to  the  allegoric  method 


^  See  ii.  16. 

2  Instances  will  be  frequentlv  found  in  the  notes  to  the  following  pages.    See  also 
IX.,  "The  Kpistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Writings  of  Philo." 


196  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

of  Alexandrian  exegesis.'  St.  Paul  was  no  stranger  to  that 
method ;  but  his  approaches  to  it  are  distant  and  external. 
They  are  of  the  nature  of  literary  reminiscences.  They  tinge 
the  phraseology  rather  than  sway  the  entire  conception. 
They  are  such  as  had  flowed  from  Alexandria  into  the  field 
of  Palestinian  thought.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Alexan- 
drianism  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  that 
of  one  who  had  been  trained  in  the  system,  and  whose  whole 
theology  is  influenced  by  the  conceptions  which  he  has 
thence  acquired. 

I  will  try  to  make  this  clear. 

a.  We  have  already  touched  upon  the  exclusive  regard 
paid  to  the  Chosen  People.  The  writer's  thoughts  are  ab- 
sorbed in  the  Hebrews.  It  is  the  same  with  Philo.  His 
cosmopolitan  interests  and  encyclopaedic  training  had  made 
him  familiar  with  Roman  institutions  and  Greek  culture  ; 
yet  everything  appears  to  him  in  the  light  of  Hebraism. 
Moses  is  to  him  the  ultimate  source  of  all  wisdom.  Philo 
was  as  ardently  convinced  as  the  fiercest  of  the  Zealots  that 
Israel  is  the  leader  of  the  Gentiles,  and  that  to  Israel  belongs 
the  future  of  the  world.  Israel  is  to  the  nations  as  the  Pil- 
lar of  Fire,  wherein  the  Logos,  or  some  other  Divine  minis- 
ter, led  their  fathers  in  the  wilderness.  Israel,  with  his  Tem- 
ple and  his  laws,  is  the  priest  to  pray  and  intercede  for  the 
seventy  nations  of  mankind.  The  souls  of  the  Israelites  are 
of  a  higher  order  than  those  of  the  heathen.  To  Philo  the 
Messianic  kingdom  means  mainly  the  assembling  of  the 
Dispersion  by  some  new  and  personal  manifestation  of  the 
Logos. ^  To  him  Judaism  means  Philosophy,  but  he  still 
regards  it  as  the  absolute  religion.  Similarly,  to  the  writer 
of  this  Epistle  Christianity  is  but  the  fulfilment  of  Judaism. 
He  sees  in  all  mankind  the  undeveloped  germs  of  the  ideal 
Hebrew. 

^.  Another  marked  trace  of  the  writer's  Alexandrianism 
is  his  method  of  treating  Scripture.  To  him,  as  to  Philo,  it 
is  pregnant  with  latent  meanings.  Its  silence  is  divinely  sig- 
nificant, and  is  indeed  as  important  for  instruction  as  are  its 
utterances.  On  two  passing  and  isolated  allusions  to  Mcl- 
chizcdek,  allusions  separated  from  each  other  by  an  interval 
of  nine  centuries,  he  builds  a  theological  system  of  une- 
qualed  grandeur.     That  system  receives  strong  support  from 

J  iv.  i-io;  vii.  1-17  ;  ix.  i-io  ;  x.  i-io. 

'■'  For  these  allusions  see  Philo.  Vita  Mosis,  Oj>p.  ii.  104,  107,  124,  126,  155  (ed.  Mangey); 
an. I  Hausrath,  Die  Zcit  d.  Apost.  181. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       1 9/ 

the  import  and  omen  of  names.  It  is  partly  built  on  the  fact 
that  certain  circumstances  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Sacred 
narrative.  Similarly,  from  the  absence  of  any  reference  to 
the  death  of  Cain,  Philo  infers  the  deathlessness  of  evil  in 
mortal  life.  He  calls  Sarah  ''without  mother"  because  the 
name  of  her  mother  is  not  recorded.  So,  to  the  writer  of 
this  Epistle,  the  mystic  splendourof  Melchizedek  is  enhanced 
by  the  circumstance  that  he  is  ''  without  father,  without 
mother,  without  recorded  genealogy." 

y.  But  again  and  again,  in  peculiar  phrases  and  pregnant 
hints,  we  see  how  much  the  writer  has  benefited  from  the 
study  of  Philo.  If  his  main  argument  turns  on  the  Priest- 
hood of  Christ,  and  His  sinless  Priesthood,  we*cannot  forget 
that  Philo  too  has  called  the  Logos  a  High  Priest,  an  "  image 
of  God,"  and/' first-born  of  God,"  and  has  spoken  of  his 
having  "no  participation  in  sin."  '  Philo  as  well  as  St.  Paul 
has  contrasted  the  milk  and  the  solid  food  of  religious  in- 
struction. If  Apollos  speaks  of  Christ's  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  God  to  make  intercession  for  us,  Philo  too  has 
spoken  of  the  Logos  as  "a  Priest  of  the  Father  of  the  Uni- 
verse ; "  as  "  an  Advocate  to  obtain  both  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  a  supply  of  all  good  ; "  as  "  the  boundary  between  created 
things  and  the  Creator  ;"  as  "an  intercessor  for  mortality  in 
its  longings  after  the  incorruptible,  and  an  ambassador  from 
the  Lord  of  all  to  tliat  which  is  His  subject."  These  are  but 
some  of  the  memorable  ways  in  which,  by  God's  gradual 
education  of  mankind,  Alexandrian  Judaism  was  enlightened 
to  create  forms  of  thought  of  which  Christianity  could  make 
use  in  proclaiming  the  Gospel  of  the  Incarnation,  and  in 
basing  it  upon  the  utterances  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures.'^ But  we  must  again  be  reminded  how  vast  is  the  su- 
periority of  the  Christian  faith  to  the  Philonian  philosophy. 
The  Logos  of  Philo  has  to  be  removed  from  any  direct  con- 
tact with  matter  by  an  endless  number  of  intervening  Powers  ; 
the  forms  in  which  He  is  represented  are  so  self-contradic- 
tory, that  we  never  know  w^hether  He  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
Person  or  an  Idea.  And  Philo  is  still  so  far  entangled  in 
Jewish  particularism  that   he  is  unable  to  understanc^  the 

^  De  />ro/iigis,  20  ;   apxtepei)?  .   .   .   otjaapTTjuxaTCDV  a/aeVoxos. 

2  Among  phrases  common  to  ihe  writer  and  to  Philo,  but  unknown  to  St.  Paul,  we  may  men- 
tion— S)j7rov.  toctoOto  .  .  '6(tqv,  the  interchange  of  meanings  between  "covenant"  and  '"testa- 
ment" in  diatheke,  <})(iiTL^€iv,  yevaaaOat,  ixeTpLOiraOelv,  o/mijTwp.  There  is  a  remarkable 
parallel  between  Heb.  x.  29  and  Philo,  Df  profug.^  "  For  if  those  who  abuse  mortal  parents 
are  led  to  death,  0/  luhat  punishment  must  loe  think  them  7vorthy  who  venture  to  blas- 
pheme the  Father  and  Maker  of  all  things  ?  "  Such  striking  terms  as  "to  sin  willingly  "  and 
'■prayers  and  supplications"  are  also  common  to  both. 


198  THE   EARLY  DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

universal  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  Logos  is 
at  the  best  a  Jewish  deliverer,  and  is  infinitely  far  from  being 
the  Saviour  of  the  World. 

8.  But  the  still  closer  comparison  of  a  few  of  the  most 
memorable  passages  of  the  Epistle  with  the  words  and 
thoughts  of  Philo  will  show  that  the  author  is  indebted  to 
him.  to  an  extent  to  which  St.  Paul's  writings  furnish  no 
parallel. 

(i.)  Take,  for  instance,  the  memorable  opening  passage. 
He  speaks  of  Christ  as  *'  the  effulgence  of  GocT s glory."  Philo 
had  spoken  of  God  as  the  "archetypal  brightness,"  and  of 
the  Logos  as  a  "sunlike  brightness,"  and  the  Book  of  Wis- 
dom had  spoRen  of  Wisdom  as  "  the  effulgence  of  everlast- 
ing light." — He  calls  the  Son  ^^  the  stamp  and  i7npress  of  God's 
substance.''  Philo  speaks  of  the  word  of  man  as  "the  stamp 
of  divine  power,"  and  of  the  Logos  as  "the  stamp  of  the 
seal  of  God." — He  says  that  the  Son  ^'upholds  all  things  by 
the  utterance  of  His  poiaer."  Philo  speaks  of  the  Logos  as 
"  bearing  all  things  that  are." — He  says,  ^^  By  whom  also  He 
made  the  worlds.''  Philo  says  that  "  the  instrument  {organon) 
of  creation  Avas  the  Word,  by  Whom  it  was  set  in  order," 
and  that  "  the  Word  is  the  image  {eikon)  of  God,  by  Whom 
the  whole  universe  Avas  fashioned."  ^ 

(ii.)  Again,  take  Heb.  iv.  12,  13  :  ''^  For  living  is  the  Word 
of  Godj  and  active^  and  more  cutting  than  any  two-edged  sword, 
and  piercing  even  to  the  division  both  of  soul  a?id  spirit,  both  of 
joints  and  marro^u,  and  quick  to  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents 
of  the  heart."  In  this  passage  the  writer  evidently  has  in  his 
mind  the  thoughts  of  Philo  and  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom. 
Philo  compares  the  Word  to  the  flaming  sword  of  Paradise  ; 
he  speaks  of  the  "  fire  and  knife  "  of  Abraham  as  being  used 
"  to  cut  off  and  consume  his  still  adherent  mortality."  He 
calls  the  Word  "  tlie  cutter  of  all  things,"  and  says  that 
"when  whetted  to  the  utmost  sharpness  it  is  incessantly  di- 
viding all  sensuous  things."  He  compares  it  to  the  midmost 
branch  of  the  golden  candlestick,  as  being  the  cutter  or  di- 
vider of  the  six  faculties  of  the  human  soul.  Similarly  the 
author  of  Wisdom  compares  God's  Almighty  word  to  a 
siiarp  sword  leaping  down  from  earth  to  Heaven.^ 

(iii.)  Again,  tliis  Epistle  is  remarkable  for  several  pas- 
sages which  express  with  uncompromising  sternness  the 
hopeless   condition    of  willing   and   determined   apostates. 

1  De  vionnrchiii,  ii.  §  5  (Mang.  i.  47,  106-162,  etc.), 

"^  See  Excursus  JX.      (Juts  rey.  lUv.  haer.  (Mang.  i.  491,  503,  506). 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       1 99 

Those  passages  (vi.  4 — 8  ;  x.  26 — 29  ;  xii.  16,  17)  are  in  some 
respects  unique  in  Scripture,  and  they  furnished  a  strong- 
hold to  the  heretics  of  the  religiosity  which  delights  in 
hatred.  That  they  do  not  sanction  such  perversions  we 
shall  see  further  on  ;  but  we  find  something  very  analogous 
to  them  in  a  passage  of  Philo  '  which  is  almost  apostolic  in 
its  solemnity,  where  he  describes  the  irreparable  loss  sus- 
tained by  that  soul  w^hich  refuses  to  submit  itself  to  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  Logos  and  which  overpasses  the  limits  of  fit- 
ting humility.  "Such  a  soul,"  he  says,  "will  not  only  be 
widowed  in  respect  to  all  true  knowledge,  but  will  also  be 
cast  out.  Once  unyoked  and  separated  from  the  Logos, 
she  will  be  cast  away  for  ever,  without  possibility  of  return- 
ing to  her  ancient  home."  " 

After  instances  so  striking,  it  will  be  needless  to  do  more 
than  to  point  to  two  of  the  most  fundamental  conceptions  in 
the  entire  Epistle. 

1.  One  of  them  is  the  Melchizedek  Priesthood  of  Christ. 
In  his  wliole  treatment  of  the  subject,  the  writer  adopts  the 
method  and  the  thoughts  of  Philo.  Philo  speaks  of  the 
"  Just  King,"  as  holding  "  a  self-acquired,  self-taught  priest- 
hood," which — building  solely  on  the  silence  of  Scripture — 
he  describes  as  having  been  bestowed  on  him  without  merit 
or  work.  He  directly  compares  him  to  the  Logos  in  the 
words,  "The  Logos,  who  is  shadoic^ed  forth  by  Melchizedek^'' 
is  "  priest  of  God  the  Most  High."  Philo  also  speaks  of 
the  Logos  as  "  the  great  High  Priest."  ^ 

But  here  again,  as  throughout  the  Epistle,  the  writer 
shows  himself  superior  to  Philo.  With  Philo  allegory  is 
everything,  and  the  literal  narrative  almost  nothing.  With 
Apollos  the  literal  narrative  is  accepted,  and  the  typology  is 
confined  within  rational  limits,  not  pushed  into  absurd  de- 
tails. He  does  not  say,  as  Philo  does,  that  Melchizedek 
brought  forth  the  nourishment  for  the  soul  which  the  Am- 
monites and  Moabites  would  not  do,  because  the  Ammon- 
ites are  the  children  only  of  perception,  and  the  Moabites 
of  mind.' 

2.  But  there  is  a  yet  more   fundamental  Alexandrianism 


^  J'^Sf-  <^lleg-  iii.  (Mang.  i.  119  ;  SuoreXTritrTtai'  /xera  ttoAA^?  dvia;  KTarai  k.t.K.). 

2  Deliusch,  on  Heb.  vi.  4.  On  the  resemblance  between  this  Epistle  and  Philo,  see  Ex- 
<:ursus  X.,  and  consult  Carpzov,  Sacr.  Exerc.  in  Ep.  ad  Hebr.  ex  Philone,  1750;  Losner, 
Ob^erv.  in  N.  T.  ex  Philone  ;  Hleek,  i.  399,  f.  9  ;  Tholuck,  78,  f.  9  ;  Gfrorer,  /.  c.  ;  Dahne, 
Alex.  Relig-ions^hilos.  i.  3  Dc  Soiiin.  §  38  (Manj;.  i.  653). 

*  Tholuck  points  out  that  in  the  Hasjadoth  about  the  infancy  of  Moses  the  writer  is  nearer 
to  Josephus  [Antt.  xv.  563)  than  to  Philo. 


200  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

in  his  mode  of  thought,  and  one  which  requires  a  fuller  ex- 
amination. 

It  had  been  a  main  object  of  St.  Paul  to  dissuade  the 
Jews  from  clinging  to  Judaic  observances  as  a  means  of  sal- 
vation ;  to  prevent  their  enforcement  upon  the  Gentiles  ; 
and  to  convince  the  Gentiles  that  they  w^ere  abrogated  and 
null.  He  does  this  by  a  dialetic  method,  in  which  he  proves 
to  the  Jews  that  Mosaism  was  but  a  transient,  imperfect, 
relative  dispensation,  having  no  absolute  value,  but  only  in- 
tended to  lead  men  by  an  unsatisfied  yearning,  or  rather 
to  drive  them  with  the  scourge  of  an  awakened  conscience, 
to  a  diviner  and  an  eternal  faith.  To  him  the  Law  is  neither 
Promise  nor  Fulfilment,  but  a  stern  though  necessary  disci- 
pline w^hich  had  been  interposed  between  the  tw^o.  Moses, 
in  the  Apostle's  view,  was  by  no  means  the  supreme  chief 
of  the  Hebrew  race,  but  a  personage  of  secondary  import- 
ance in  comparison  with  Abraham.  The  fiery  Law  of  Sinai, 
so  far  from  being,  as  the  Rabbis  said,  the  one  thing  for  the 
sake  of  which  the  universe  had  been  created,^  was  deposed 
into  complete  subordination.  St.  Paul  placed  it  immeasur- 
ably lower  than  the  Promise  to  Abraham,  and  showed  that 
it  shrank  into  insignificance  before  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 
Hence  the  contrast  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  is,  for 
St.  Paul,  a  contrast  between  Command  and  Promise,  be- 
tween Sin  and  Mercy,  betw^een  Works  and  Faith,  between 
Curse  and  Blessing,  between  the  threat  of  inevitable 
Death  and  the  gift  of  Eternal  Life.  Apollos,  on  the  other 
hand,  treats  of  the  contrast  only  as  a  contrast  between  Type 
and  Reality.  The  polemical  aspect  of  the  question  has  dis- 
appeared. The  Circumcision  controversy,  the  question 
about  meats,'  the  proofs  that  the  Gentiles  were  not  to  be 
under  Levitic  bondage,  are  matters  that  have  no  existence 
in  his  pages.  He  does  not  say  one  word  about  that  oppo- 
sition of  Faith  and  Works  which  occupies  so  many  chapters 
of  St.  Paul.  Election,  Regeneration,  the  Rejection  of  Is- 
rael, the  difference  between  the  physical  and  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Israel,  are  absent  from  his  treatise.  He  only  alludes 
even  to  Repentance  and  to  the  Resurrection  to  class  them 
among  the  "elements"  which  he  may  safely  pass  by."     To 


'  See  the  Introd.  to  Delitzsch's  Commentary  on  the  Epistle,  and  Kitzur  Sh'lh,  J".  7,  2 
(Hershon's  Tahn.  Miscell.  p.  331).  Avoda  ZAra.,/.  3,  i.  Shabbath,  y."  89,  i.  Posachim, 
/  54,  I,  etc. 

'  There  is  a  passing  allusion  to  the  distinction  of  meats  in  xiii.  p,  but  only  as  it  affected  the 
Jews,  and  with  no  reference  to  its  present  obligatorirjess  or  non-obligatoriness  either  for  them 
or  for  the  Gentiles.  3  vi.  i. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       20T 

St.  Paul  Judaism  was  represented  by  a  Law  which  enforced, 
by  one  universal  menace,  its  impossible  exactions  ;  it  was 
a  dispensation  of  wrath  which  revealed  to  man  that  he  was 
naturally  under  the  curse  of  God.  Christianity,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  represented  by  a  Deliverance,  a  Reconcili- 
ation, a  Free  Grace  which  men  were  forced  to  seek  as  a 
refuge  from  a  doom  which  their  troubled  consciences  de- 
clared to  be  deserved.  This  Epistle  views  the  two  religions 
under  an  aspect  entirely  diiferent.  It  sees  in  Judaism  not  so 
much  a  Law  as  a  Systc?n  of  Worship,  of  which  Christianity 
Avas  the  antitype  and  fulfilment.  Both  writers  arrive  at  the 
same  conclusion,  but  they  do  so  by  different  routes,  and 
from  different  premisses.  St.  Paul  represents  Mosaism  as  a 
cancelled  servitude  ;  this  writer  as  an  incomplete  satisfac- 
tion. To  St.  Paul  the  Levitic  system  was  a  discipline  which 
had  been  rendered  superfluous  ;  to  this  writer — to  whom  by 
anticipation  I  will  again  ask  permission  to  give  the  name  of 
Apoll'^^s — it  was  a  symbol  which  had  become  nugatory.  To 
St.  Paul  the  Law  was  a  bond,  of  which  Christ  had  nailed 
the  torn  fragments  to  His  Cross  ;  to  Apollos  Judaism  Avas  a 
scaffolding  within  which  the  true  Temple  had  been  built,  a 
chrysalis  from  which  the  w^inged  life  had  departed.  St. 
Paul  looked  on  Mosaism  as  a  broken  fetter,  his  follower  re- 
garded it  as  a  vanished  shadow.  To  St.  Paul  the  Law  was 
abrogated  because  it  consisted  of  '*  beggarly  elements  ;  "  to 
Apollos  it  was  annulled  because  the  Priesthood  on  which  it 
depended  had  become  weak  and  profitless.  Both  regarded 
Christianity  as  far  more  ancient  than  Judaism — but  it  was 
so  to  St.  Paul  because  he  saw  in  it  the  fulfilment  of  a  Prom- 
ise ;  and  to  Apollos  because  he  saw  in  it  the  realisation  or 
an  archetype.  St.  Paul's  proof  hinges  on  the  threat  which 
lay  by  implication  in  the  words  :  He  that  doeth  them  shall  live 
by  them ;  the  argument  of  Apollos  rests  on  the  command  to 
Moses  :  ''  See  that  thou  make  all  things  after  the  pattern  shewed 
thee  in  the  Mounts  St.  Paul  proves  the  independence  of 
Christianity  by  referring  to  Abraham  ;  Apollos  by  referring 
to  Melchizedek.  The  Jewish  ritual  was  to  Apollos  a  ma- 
terial something  between  the  Divine  Idea  and  its  partial  re- 
alisation by  Christians  upon  earth,  until  they  passed  to  its 
absolute  realisation  in  Heaven.  Hence  "  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  a  thoroughly  original  attempt  to  establish  the 
main  results  of  Paulinism  upon  new  presuppositions  and  in 
an  entirely  independent  way."  '    We  may  add  that  this  way, 

1  Pfleiderer,  Paulinism.  ii.  53. 


202  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

being  more  comprehensible,  was  of  the  extremest  import- 
ance. It  was  clearer  to  the  Gentiles  because  it  did  not  in- 
volv^e  the  transcendental  heights  of  St.  Paul's  fervid  mysti- 
cism. It  was  more  easily  accepted  by  Jews  because  it  gave 
a  less  violent  shock  to  their  prejudices.  It  soothed  the 
wounded  pride  of  Levitism,  by  recognising  it  as  part  of  an 
unbroken  continuity,'  The  Jew  was  less  likely  to  cling  with 
frantic  patriotism  to  the  traditions  of  his  fathers  if  he  could 
be  persuaded  that  Christianity  was  not  in  opposition  to 
them,  but  might  be  regarded  as  a  progress  beyond  them,  an 
evolution  out  of  them,  a  nearer  approximation  to  the  Eter- 
nal Substance  of  which  they  were  the  acknowledged  but 
evanescent  shadow.' 

And  yet  how  effective  the  argument  was  !  The  Temple 
seems  to  rise  before  us  in  all  the  splendour  of  its  most  impos- 
ing ceremorial.  We  see  the  Ark  and  the  Cherubim  and 
Aaron's  budding  rod,  and  the  golden  pot  of  manna,  and  the 
curling  wreaths  of  incense.  We  hear  the  trumpets  blow, 
and  see  the  Levites  in  their  white  tunics  on  the  marble 
steps,  and  the  High  Priest  in  his  golden  and  jewelled  robes. 
And  while  the  Jew  is  exulting  in  all  this  gorgeous  and  sig- 
nificant ritual,  it  is  by  one  wave  of  a  wand  reduced  to  a 
shadow,  a  picture,  a  transient  symbol  of  that  by  which  it  is 
all  to  be  done  away  ! 

For  the  main  section  of  the  Epistle  is  occupied  with  the 
proof  that  Christ  is  the  true  Priest,  who  continues  indeed 
the  Aaronic  priesthood,  but  supersedes  it  by  reverting  to  a 
higher  type  ;  that  Judaism  is  but  an  inchoate  and  imperfect 
Christianity.  The  difference  between  the  two  systems  is 
quantitative  rather  tlian  qualitative,  though  quantitative  in 
an  almost  infinite  degree.  The  ancient  novice,  when 
initiated  into  the  mysteries,  used  to  exclaim,  ec/'vyov  Kaxw, 
^vfjov  oLfieLvovy  "■  I  fled  the  bad,  I  found  the  better."  But  to 
revert  from   Christianity  to  Judaism  was  the  worst  kind  of 


*  This  may  be  illustrated  from  the  writer's  treatment  of  Revelation.  Here  again  we  find 
the  argumentuiH  a  tniuori  ad  majus.  The  Revelation  to  the  Jews  (TroAai)  was  in  all  re- 
spects a  genuine  revelaiion  fi.  i  ;  ii.  2  ;  iii.  9  ;  iv.  12  ;  xii.  19,  etc.),  but  the  Instrument  of  the 
Christian  Revelation  was  higher  and  greater  (i.  i  ;  ii.  3) — One  far  above  angels,  far  above 
Moses,  far  above  Aaron  ;  and  He  spoke  not  in  terror,  as  on  Sinai,  but  in  mercy,  as  by  the 
Galilean  I,ake  (xii.  18-21  ;  iii.  7  ;  iv.  i,  etc.). 

2  The  whole  subject  has  been  well  treated  by  Baur  {Church  History^  I.,  pp.  1 14-122, 
E.  T.)  and  by  Pfleiderer  [Paulinismus,  Kap.  i,\-.),  to  whom  I  am  much  indebted.  Baur  says 
(p.  118) — "The  distinction  between  the  two  views  may  be  said  to  be  that  the  tendency  of  St. 
Paul's  is  ethical,  that  of  this  Episde  metaphysical.''''  There  is  nothing  in  this  Episde  so 
startling  to  the  Jew  as  St.  Paul's  remark  that  the  Law  was  j^iven  *'  for  the  sake  of  transgres- 
sions" fGal.  iii.  19)  ;  but  what  ApoUos  .sees  in  the  Law  is  mamly  itslJc^rtZ/V^^  relation  to  Chris- 
tianity. The  Priesthood,  not  the  Law,  is  with  him  the  es.sential  thing,  and  a-;  to  the  L.-iw,  he 
merely  snys  iliat  when  there  is  a  change  in  tlic  one  there  must  be  a  change  in  the  other  (vii.  12). 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       203 

apostasy — it  was  to  fling  away  tlie  better  from  a  deliberate 
preference  for  the  worse.* 

The  author  (as  we  have  seen)  found  his  fruitful  thought 
of  a  pre-existent  Ideal  in  the  Alexandrian  philosophy.  That 
philosophy  had  sprung  up  from  seed  which  Plato  had  sown 
in  the  rich  soil  of  Semitic  monotheism.  To  the  school  of 
Pliilo,  as  to  that  of  Plato,  earth  was — 

"  But  the  shadow  of  Heaven,  and  things  therein, 
Each  to  the  other  Hke  more  than  on  earth  is  thought."* 

To  them — and  they  found  sanction  for  their  views  in  Holy 
Writ — the  world  oiphe7iomena  was  but  the  shadow  of  a  world 
of  noumena.  The  things  seen  and  temporal  were  dim  copies 
of  things  unseen  and  eternal.  The  visible  universe  is  a  faint 
adumbration  of  the  archetypal,  and  it  is  only  Divine  in  so 
far  as  it  answers  to  the  Great  Idea  of  its  Creator. 

The  Jews  had  begun  to  study  Greek  philosophy,  and  to 
see  that — 

"All  knowledge  is  not  couched  in  Moses'  Law, 
The  Pentateuch,  or  what  the  Prophets  wrote  : 
'I'he  Gentiles  also  know,  and  write,  and  teach 
To  admiration,  led  by  Nature's  light." 

Tlie  spirit  of  Judaisni  had  been  kindled  afresh  by  a  breath 
of  secular  inspiration.  They  had  begun  to  recognise  \n  the 
nobler  tones  of  heathen  literature  the  voice  of  that  eternal 
Sibyl  who  **  in  all  ages  entering  into  holy  souls  makes  them 
sons  of  God  and  prophets,  and  speaking  things  simple  and 
unperfumed  and  unadorned,  reaches  through  ten  thousand 
years  by  the  aid  of  God."'  Familiar  with  the  Ti?naeiis, 
Philo  made  his  entire  system  depend  on  the  existence  of  a 
Koo-/xo5  vorjToq,  or  World  of  Ideas,  of  which  the  Mosaic  system 
WRS  Ti  copy.  He  learnt  from  wScripture  that  the  worlds  were 
made  by  the  Word  of  God,  and  he  regarded  the  ideal  world 
as  being  the  sum  total  of  the  concrete  developments  of  this 
Infinite  Logos.  As  St.  John  identifies  the  Logos  with 
Christ  so  the  author  of  this  Epistle  identifies  the  Ideal 
World  with  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  with  perfected  salvation.  And  thus  the  conception 
— transplanted  from  the  atmosphere  of  philosophy  into  that 
of  religion — acquires  new  life.     It  is  no  longer  a  transcen- 

'  ITence  the  const3nt  recurrence  of  Kpeimov  cAtti'?,  KpeiTTutv  SiaOiqKrf  Cvii.  19,  22)  ;  Sia<f>op<o- 
Te'pa  AeiTOvpyia  (viii.  6;  :  jiei'^uji' (cai  TeAtioTt'pa  <TKr)vrj  {\x.  11);  /cpeiTTOj'es  Ovaiai,  ejrayyfAt'at 
(ix.  23).  It  might  almost  be  said  that  Troacf)  /oiaAAoj/,  "  how  much  more,"  is  the  key-note  of  the 
argument  (ix.  14;  x.  29) — the  nrgutnenium  a  ntinori  ad  inajus. 

'-  *•  Der  Sinnenwelt  ein  Schatte  ist  der  Geistwelt"  (Mahomed,  a  Persian  poet,  qftotcd  by 
'I'Jioiuck,  135).  ^  Heraclitus. 


204  Tin:    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

denial  abstraction  :  it  gives  form  and  expression  to  a  living 
hope. 

We  might,  perhaps,  suppose  that  there  is  a  trace  of  the 
same  conception  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul  about  ''the 
heavenlies  "  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  ; '  but  St.  Paul 
merely  uses  the  expression  as  a  moral  appeal,  and  not  as  a 
basis  of  a  theological  system.  In  the  Epistle  before  us  the 
whole  argument  is  made  to  turn  upon  it.  Levitism  is  but  a 
sketch  in  outline,  a  rough  copy,  a  quivering  shadow  of  the 
things  in  Heaven,  wdiich  are  supersensuous,  invisible,  im- 
material, immovable,  eternal.^  This  aeon  is  but  an  imper- 
perfect  realisation  of  the  future  aeon.^  The  Tabernacle  w^as 
made  after  the  pattern  of  a  Divine  Temple,^  and  Christianity 
is  that  Temple.  The  superiority  of  Christianity  to  Judaism 
is  shown  to  consist  in  this,  that  Judaism  is  earthly  and 
sensuous,  Christianity  supersensuous  and  ideal.  But  the 
Christianity  of  this  w^orld  is  itself  but  a  c/oser  copy,  a  fn^er 
realisation  of  the  perfect  kingdom  beyond  the  grave. 
Hence  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  both  present  and  future. 
It  is  a  salvation  subjectively  enjoyed,  not  yet  objectively 
realised.^ 

(i.)  From  this  different  way  of  handling  the  relation 
of  Christianity  to  Judaism,  there  arises  incidentally  a  re- 
markable difference  between  the  aspect  presented  by  the 
Christian  Hope  in  this  writer  and  in  St.  Paul.  St.  Paul 
says,  ''We  w^ere  saved  by  our  Hope."  ^  The  salvation  is 
secured,  yet  Hope  is  necessary,  because  here  we  groan  in 
the  mortal  body.  There  is  in  us  a  "psychological  dualism" 
— a  disintegrated  individuality — flesh  struggling  against 
spirit,  and  spirit  against  flesh,  although  the  spirit  is  winning 
a  progressive  victory,  and  gradually  asserting  its  sole  pre- 
eminence. The  Christian  7'eceives  the  Sonship,  but  he  still 
awaits  its  perfect  fruition."  He  looks  forward  to  the  resur- 
rection as  his  final  deliverance  from  the  assaults  of  the 
ileshy  principle,  after  which  he  will   be  in  possession  of  a 

'  F-ph    i.  /,ij.Mw  ;  and  Hcb.  viil.  5 ;  ix.  23. 

2  ujrd5«ivMa.  viii.  5  \^  vkIov,  ix.  i  ;  ix.  23  ;  xi.  1,  3  ;  xii.  18,  27  ;  napaPoKr),  ix.  9  ;  avTiruna, 
ix.  24  :  as  opposed  to  6  tvttos,  or  rh  Te\et.ov,  or  to.  aATjfftvo,  or  avrtj  t)  sIkuov.  1'he  world  of 
phenomena  'avrrj  ij  ktio-i?)  is  described  as  visible  (to  p\en6ixevov,  xi.  3).  capable  of  bein? 
shaken  (ra  (raAtw6/xe«'a,  xii.  27),  tangible  (xii.  18),  but  tiie  archetypal  world  is  the  "  House  o^f 
God"  (x.  21);  "the  genuine  Tabernacle"  (viii.  2);  "the  city  which  has  the  foundations" 
(xi.  10):  our  true  "  fatherland  "  (xi.  14);  "the  unshakeable  kingdom"  (xii.  28);  ''the 
heavenly  Jerusalem  "  (xii.  22).  3  Hdj   ii.  5  ;  vi.  5. 

*  J  hus  the  Jews  said  that  "An  Ark  of  fire,  and  a  Table  and  Lampstand  of  fire,  came  down 
from  Heaven  to  Moses  as  patterns,  and  that  Gabriel,  clothed  as  a  workman,  showed  Moses 
how  to  make  them,"— (Mcnachoth.  /  29,  i.)  <>  Heb.  xii.  28  ;  vi.  4.  5. 

•Rom.  viii.  -4  ;  ry  yAp  i\m6i  iaMdijutv.  '  Jb.  vloOeaiay  CLTreKStxCfievoi. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       20^ 

spiritual  body.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we  read 
nothing  of  this  fierce  struggle.  Constantly  as  the  author 
speaks  of  the  future  life,  he  says  nothing  about  the  Resiuv 
rection,  except  to  mention  it  among  the  elementary  subjects 
which  he  docs  not  mean  to  discuss.  But  Hope  is  necessary, 
because  the  state  in  which  we  live  is  but  a  shadow  of  tlic 
state  wherein  we  shall  be.  In  this  view  we  can  only  realise 
the  future  by  exultant  anticipation  and  inward  evidence.^ 
Plope  is  not  fruition.  Here  the  ship  still  tosses  on  the  tur- 
bid waves,  but  yet  it  is  held  by  a  sure  and  steadfast  anchor, 
of  which  the  golden  chain  passes  out  of  our  sight  in  that 
aerial  ocean  beyond  the  veil ; — and  the  unseen  links  of  that 
chain  are  held  by  the  hand  of  Christ,  Who  has  gone  before 
us  there."  It  remained  for  St.  John  to  say  and  to  show  still 
more  clearly  and  comfortingly  that,  he  that  hath  the  Son 
hath  life — that  this  is  eternal  life.  In  him  Hope  melts  into 
actual  fruition.  The  future  becomes  one  with  the  present. 
The  chasm  between  the  two  is  bridged  over  by  the  highest 
utterance  of  revelation,  that  ''  the  Word  became  flesh." 

(2.)  So  far,  then,  we  have  seen  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Elebrews  differs  theologically  from  the  writings  of  St.  Paul 
by  its  marked  Alexandrianism.  But  this  is  not  the  only 
difference.  Faith  is  prominent  alike  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  in  St.  Paul,  but  it  is  presented  under  a  changed 
aspect.  The  terminology  is  in  part  identical,  the  accentua- 
tion of  meaning  is  not  the  same.  The  writer  uses  St.  Paul's 
phrases,  but  he  applies  them  to  truths  seen  under  a  different 
light.  To  St.  Paul  Faith  meant  the  essence  of  the  Chris- 
tian life.  Ultimately  it  meant  the  unity  of  the  spirit  of  man 
with  the  Spirit  of  God — the  life  in  Christ — the  identity  of 
the  life  of  Christ  with  the  life  of  the  Christian.  The  life  of 
faith  in  St.  Paul  is  the  realised  immanence  of  Christianity, 
''  Christ  in  me."  This  is  the  form  of  faith  in  his  writings, 
and  its  object  is  the  life,  the  death,  the  resurrection  of  his 
Lord.  Now,  often  as  faitli  is  spoken  of  in  this  Epistle,  the 
form  and  the  object  of  it  are  different.  Its  form  is  "  the 
substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  conviction  of  things  in- 
visible."^ The  object  oi  it  is  neither  the  Person  of  Christ,' 
nor  the  death  of  Christ,^  nor  the   resurrection  of  Christ," 

1  Heb.  vi.  4,  5 ;  xii.  28.  2  Heb.  vi.  19. 

^  xi.  I.  On  the  menning  of  UTroo-Too-i?  and  eAey^^os  see  itifra,  on  Heb.  xi.  i.  "  Der  Ke- 
grifif  der  Trtcms  ein  anderer  ist,  nanilicli  nicht  so  wohl  dieyfrt'<'.f  specialis  in  Christum  als  die 
Jicies  oeueralis  in  das  unsichtbare  (Idcale)  Heil."     Inimer,  Neu-Test.  Theol.  p.  403. 

'^  Rom.  iii.  22  ;  Gal.  ii.  20;  Eph.  i.  15;  Col.  i.  4,  etc.  ^  Rom.  iii.  25  ;  Gal.  ii.  20. 

'  Eph.  fiassiin  ;  i  Cor.  xv.  etc.  Chri.st's  resurrection  is  only  once  alluded  to  by  ApoUos, 
Heb.  xiii.  20,  and  that  but  passingly. 


206  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

but  it  is  trust  in  the  word  of  God,  nnd  the  entrance  into  that 
unseen  world  whereinto  Christ  has  preceded  us.'  Not  that 
tlie  faith  of  this  writer  sinks  into  a  Chiliastic  expectation. 
It  is  the  present  approximation  to  future  perfectness.  It  is 
confidence  in  the  promised  rest,  founded  on  approach  to 
God,"' — analogous  to  the  belief  of  the  old  heroes  and  Pa- 
triarchs, but  more  perfect  and  less  distant,"  and  evinced  by 
endurance.*  Faith  in  St.  Paul  is  oneness  with  Christ  ;  in 
this  writer  it  has  Christ  for  its  exai7iple.  It  is  not  the  instru- 
ment of  justification,  but  the  condition  of  access.  It  is 
used  in  a  sense  more  easily  intelligible,  and  therefore  more 
likely  to  be  widely  accepted.  It  is  **  Christ  for  us"  rather 
than  ''Christ  in  us."  Hence  faith,  as  treated  in  this  Epis- 
tle, becomes  very  closely  allied  with  "endurance  to  the 
end."  ° 

(2.)  /?.  Tiiere  is  a  similar  difference  observable  in  the  use 
oftheAvord  Righteousness.  St.  Paul's  use  of  the  word  is 
peculiar.  The  main  dogmatic  thesis  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans — "justification  by  faith  " — is  an  illustration  of  the 
method  whereby  the  subjective  righteousness  of  God  can 
become  the  objective  righteousness  (or  justification)  of  man. 
To  this  dogma  the  letter  before  us  does  not  allude,  and 
Dikaioswm  is  confined  to  its  original  meaning  01  simple 
"righteousness."  For  that  state  which  St.  Paul  calls  "jus- 
tification "  this  writer  has  a  different  word.  The  words  "im- 
puted righteousness"  nowhere  occur  in  him.  Righteous- 
ness with  him  is  not  a  condition  bestowed  on  man  by  God 
as  a  result  of  the  work  of  Christ,  but,  as  in  James,  it  is  faith 
manifested  by  obedience,  and  so  earning  the  witness  of 
God.'  Thus  the  word  Dikaiosune  is  stripped  of  judicial  ac- 
cessories,^ and  the  results  of  a  life  of  obedience  based  on 
faith  are  expressed  by  the  terms  "purification,"  "  sanctifi- 
cation,"  "  perfectionmcnt."®  In  other  words,  "righteous- 
ness" is  not  to  this  writer  "the  Divine  gift  which  faith  re- 
ceives " — the  white  robe  put  into  the  outstretched  hands  ; 
but  it  is  "  the  human  condition  which  faith  produces,"  '•'  the 
inheritance  which  man  acquires.'" 

*  vi.  I ;  xi.  I,  4,  2,  etc.     He  does  not  speak  of  ttioti?  Irjaoi)  Xpio-roO  or  iv  Xpiarto  'lT3<roO. 
'  "j-  'O-     „  ^  '  >=•  34  :   XI.  40  ;   xii.  22,  28.  •»  x.  35-39. 

*  xi.  1  :   xii.  I,  Toiyapovi'  ...  61    VTro/aoi'^s  Tp€';^w/ixe»'. 

.So  Philo  defines  F.iith  :is  "  .-x  bcltcrinK  in  all  things  of  tiie  soul  which  has  cast  itself  for 
support  on  the  Anth<jr  of  all  things."     De  Abrahamo,  ii.  39. 

*  t'/napTvp^OTj  fit'oi  itVaio?,  xi.  4,  5. 

'  Atitaioi.)  occurs  twcnty-ciKht  times  in  St.  Paul ;  not  once  in  this  Epistle. 
»  a.fia^eii'.  ayio^«<rflai,  \\.  n  ;   x.  10,  14,  29  ;    xiii.  12.      Compare  pa-vri^iw,  pamiVfto^,  x.  22, 
29;    xu.  24  (i  F'».-t.  i.  ■?].  »  xi.  33,  fiia  niaTfio<;  (ipydcravro  &iKaio<TVin]v . 

•0  Ai.  7,  Ciicaioavfjj?  tyivtro  xAjjpofd^os.     Sec  Ptleidercr,  ii.  86. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.      20/ 

Flere,  again,  there  is  no  contradiction  of  St.  Paul,  who 
carefully  guards  himself  against  Antinomian  misconcep- 
tions, and  who  shows  that  where  faith  is  there  works  must 
be,  just  as  where  sunlight  is  there  warmth  and  light  must 
be.  But  though  there  is  no  contradiction,  there  is  a  marked 
divergence.  The  identity  of  phraseology  does  but  serve  to 
bring  into  prominence  the  underlying  differences.  Even 
when  the  author  quotes  the  famous  verse  of  Habakkuk, 
"The  just  shall  live  by  faith,"  or,  as  he  more  probably 
wrote,  *'/>/v  just  man  shall  live  by  faith/'  he  applies  it  in  ^ 
manner  which  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  St.  P-aul.  Each  of 
the  three  words  of  the  text  has  a  different  shade  of  meaning. 
By  "  the  just  "  St.  Paul  means  "  he  who  has  been  justified  ;" 
by  ''  faith  "  he  means  "  union  with  Christ ;  "  by  ''shall  live  " 
he  means  "  enter  into  the  spiritual  life."  The  use  of  the  text 
by  Apollos  comes  nearer  to  its  original  significance  in  the 
old  Jewish  prophet,  which  was  that  ''  the  upright  man  should 
be  preserved  from  ruin  by  his  fidelity."  *  How  any  careful 
reader  with  such  facts  before  him  can  persist  in  maintain- 
ing that  St.  Paul  w^rote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrew^s,  must 
remain  one  of  the  strangest  problems  of  theological  criti- 
cism. 

(3.)  Once  more,  without  the  smallest  c&nfradidian  between 
the  Christology  of  St.  Paul  and  that  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  we  can  trace  in  the  latter  the  speciality  of 
Alexandrian  influences.  The  conception  of  the  Eternal 
Christ,  as  One  Who' was  far  above  all  angels,  is  the  same  as 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  but  the  expressions  used  of 
Him  are  even  stronger.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
Christ  is  not  only  the  Image  of  God,  as  he  is  in  St.  Paul," 
but  also,  as  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,^  "the  effulgence  of 
His  glory,  and  the  impress  of  His  substance  ; "  and  is  not 
only,  as  in  St.  Paul,  the  Instrument  of  creation,  but  also  the 
upliolder  of  all  things  by  the  word  of  His  power.  In  this 
respect  Apollos  stands  midway  between  St.   Paul   and    St. 

1  Habb.  ;i.  4  :  Rom.  i.  17;  Hcb.  x.  38.  See  my  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  181  ; 
Pfieiderer,  Paulbiism.  ii.  89  ;  Wei.ss,  Petrin.  Lehrbef^r.  527. 

-  etjcwv  Tou  ©eoO  toO  a.opa.Tov,  Col.  i.  15  ;  iii.  10  ;  2  Cor.  iv.  4. 

3  Wisd.  vij.  25.  26.  Noaclc  suggested  an  ingeniou.s  theor\',  that  the  'Book  of  Wisdom  was 
wtiten  by  Apollos  before  his  conversion.  This  theory  has  been  worked  out  by  Dean  Plumptre 
in  the  Expositor^  i.  327,  348,  409-435.  He  adduces  the  words  common  tb  Wisdom  and  the 
Kpistle,  such  as  iroAujoteptos,  aTravyacr/jta,  WTrocrTacrts,  ^epajrwv,  totto?  ixeravotas,  pe^ai'tjcri?, 
CK^aCTis,  and  many  more;  shows  the  connexion  of  both  books  with  Philo  ;  points  to  parallel 
passages  like  Heb.  iv.  12  and  Wisd.  xviii.  22  ;  shows  that  Clemens  of  Rome  used  both  books  ; 
illustrates  the  sonorous  style  of  both,  the  fondness  for  compound.s,  for  unusual  words,  and  for 
ail  accumulation  of  epithets  ;  and  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  two  books  are  mentioned 
in  ju.xtaposition  by  Irenajus  (Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  26),  and  nearly  so  in  the  iMuratoriau  Canon. 


20S  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

John.  The  word  Logos,  as  directly  applied  to  Christ,  seems 
constantly  to  be  in  his  mind,  but  he  does  not  actually  use 
it.  And  yet  in  his  first  chapter,'  and  elsewhere,'  he  trans- 
fers directly  to  Christ  the  attributes  of  the  Logos  of  Pliilo.' 
And  by  so  doing  he  produced  a  deep  effect.  In  the  Apoca- 
lypse/also,  Christ  appears  as  the  Logos  and  the  High 
Priest.  In  its  exalted  conception  of  our  Lord's  Divinity, 
and  in  the  development  of  His  high-priestly  functions,"  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  exercised  an  influence  upon  the 
Church  which  perpetuated  its  value  long  after  any  proof 
of  the  superiority  of  Christianity  to  Judaism  had  been  ren- 
dered needless  by  the  inexorable  demonstrations  of  History. 
(4.)  And  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ  is  also  looked 
at  from  a  slightly  different  standpoint,  both  in  its  nature  and 
its  results.  In  St.  Paul  the  decree  of  God  and  the  passivity 
of  Christ  are  mainly  dwelt  upon,  and  His  death  is  regarded 
from  its  most  mysterious  aspect  as  being  an  expiatory  sacri- 
fice to  redeem  mankind  from  the  curse  of  the  Law ;  but  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  Christ  is  not  only  the  passive 
victim,  but  the  sacrificing  priest.'^  The  result  of  His  w^iiling 
sacrifice  of  Himself  is  the  purification  of  man's  conscience 
from  the  sense  of  guilt,"  and  the  sanctification  of  man's  life 
by  a  new  relation  towards  God.  Guilt  had  rendered  us 
impure  before  God.  The  Jews  of  old  w^ere  replaced  in  a 
condition  of  Levitical  purity,  partly  by  sacrifices,  partly  by 
a  sprinkling  of  blood.  We  are  rendered  spiritually  pure 
from  the  defilement  of  a  tormenting  conscience  by  the  death 
of  Christ  for  us  once  for  all,  and  by  the  sprinkling  of  our 
consciences  with  His  Blood.  The  point  of  view  from  which 
Christ's  death  is  here  regarded  is  not  the  identity  of  the 
Christian  with  Christ,  but  the  passing  through  the  veil  into 
the  Holiest, — the  approach  to  Christ,  and  through  Christ  to 
God.  Even  when  he  is  dwelling  directly  on  the  death  of 
Christ,  the  author  scarcely  ever  uses  any  phrase  which  can 
be  interpreted  as  intimating  that  it  was  an  expiation  which 
was  necessary  to  manifest  that  God  was  righteous  although 


'  Hch.  i,  1-4.  ....  .  "^  'V-  12.  13- 

De  Sotnii.      (Mang.  i.  633,  to  \i.kv  yap  napaSelyfjia  6  TrArjpe'o-TaTo;  fjv  ivToD  Adyo?  <})U)i.)  . 

*  It  IS  reprodiiccil  in  Clem.  Rom.  at/  Rom.  36,  58,  .-ind  rcfcired  to  in  the  Martyrdom  0/ 
Polycar/,,  and  the  Testament  of  the  T-ioclvc  Patriarchs. 

*  Gei;ier  h.-is  argued  that  this  conception  came  from  the  Saddiicees,  and  therefore  that  the 
writer  must  have  once  been  a  Saddncee.  There  is  nothing  to  he  said  in  favour  of  this  view, 
and  much  afiamst  it.  See  Matt.  xxii.  23,  and  Acts  .\xiii.  8,  compared  with  Heh  vi.  2  ;  xi.  35  : 
I.  II.  paisi>n, 

*  I'hc  two  words  most  frequently  used  are  *tadapta/x6?,  KaOapi^tv,  as  in  ix.  13,  14 ;  x.  2,  22, 
etc.  ;  and  ayia^ctf,  ii.  11  ;  x.  xo,  14. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.      209 

lie  forgave  sin.'  The  reason  which  he  assigns  for  the 
abstract  necessity  of  Christ's  deatli  is  that  a  testament  can 
only  come  into  force  after  the  death  of  the  testator.'^  This 
reason,  taken  alone,  explains  so  small  a  part  of  the  matter, 
and  so  completely  leaves  out  of  sight  the  sacrificial  death  of 
Christ,  and  bears  so  slightly  on  the  analogy  of  the  ancient 
sacrifices  on  which  he  has  so  long  been  dwelling,  that  we  are 
almost  driven  to  infer  that  the  writer  supposed  his  readers 
to  be  aware  of  the  explanation  of  this  mystery  furnished  by 
St.  Paul,  and  therefore  deemed  it  needless  to  develop  it 
further.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  whereas  the 
author  speaks  even  more  strongly  than  St.  Paul  of  the 
majesty  of  the  Eternal  and  Pre-existent  Christ,  he  yet 
dwells  more  distinctly  than  St.  Paul  on  the  moral  and 
human  side  of  the  life  of  Christ — His  prayers  and  tears, 
His  anguish,  His  holy  fear,  His  perfectionment  through 
suffering.^  He  contents  himself  with  the  general  expres- 
sion that  there  was  a  moral  fitness  in  its  being  thus 
ordained.*  But  while  we  can  have  no  doubt  that  he 
accepted  the  truth  which  St.  Paul  had  taught,*  we  can  see 
how  natural  it  w^as  for  one  who  had  been  trained  in  Alex- 
andrian notions  to  accept  it  without  being  led  to  dwell 
upon  it  ;  to  leave  it  as  an  insoluble  mystery ;  to  feel  a  diffi- 
culty in  speaking  of  "reconciliation,"  or  of  any  apparent 
contrast  between  God's  retributive  wrath  and  His  reconcil- 
ing love.  That  which  only  could  be  expressed  in  anthropo- 
morphic, and  therefore  in  imperfect  metaphors,  was  least 
calculated  to  attract  the  genius  of  Alexandrian  elucidation. 
We  are  not  surprised  that  an  Alexandrian  should  reverently 
leave  this  on  one  side,  as  being  the  mysterious  element  in 
Christ's  sacrifice  which  is  to  us  incomprehensible.  He  does 
not,  therefore,  touch  on  the  satisfaction  of  God's  justice, 
but  on  another  aspect  of  Christ's  death — namely,  the  anni- 
hilation  of    the   power  of    the  devil."       He  is   content    to 

1  As  in  Rom.  iii.  25  ;  Gal.  ill.  13  ;  2  Cor.  v.  31.  2  Heb.  ix.  i5-?2. 

3-ii.  10;  iv.  15  ;  V.  8;  vi.  20;  vii.  2,  10  ;  xii.  2.  *  effpeTref  17/xtv,  vii.  26. 

6  That  he  does  so  is  clear  from  such  expressions  as  ajroXvTpwo-i?,  ix.  15  ;  aliJ.aTeKxv<ria,  ix. 
22  ;  lAacTKeo'flai,  ii.  17  ;  orrws  VTre'p  Travrb?  yiv<rr\Tai  BavaTov,  ii.  9.  But  these  expressions 
make  it  only  the  more  remarkable  that  he  nowhere  touches  on  the  reason  for  these  necessities 
— the  rationale  of  this  reconciliation.  He  says  that  Christ  was  offered  and  man  was  cleansed, 
but  he  nowhere  develops  any  theory  of  vicarious  satisfaction  to  explain  the  fact.  (Kostlin, 
Johann.  Lehrbegr.  435.) 

6  Compare  Col.  ii.  14,  15.  Poth  writers  use  the  word  "  ransom,"  because  as  regards  man 
Christ's  death  has  the  effect  of  a  r.ansom  paid.  But  neither  of  them  touch  on  die  question, 
"  To  lohotn  is  the  ransom  paid?"  And  with  good  reason  :  because  that  question  is  an  in- 
vasion of  the  secrets  of  the  Deity.  When  men  insist  on  trying  to  answer  it,  they  (i)  either 
draw  out  a  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  which  represents  God  in  a  light  which  utterly  shocks  the 
moral  sense,  or  (2)  infer,  as  was  taught  by  the  theologians  for  a  thousand  years,  that  the  per- 


2IO  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

declare,  without  further  discussion,  that  Christ's  death  is 
man's  purification.  He  ''leaves  a  gap  between  the  means 
and  the  end."  '  He  dwells  more  on  Christ  the  Sanctifier 
than  on  God  the  Justifier.'  He  speaks  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings as  the  appointed  pathway  of  His  perfection,  and  of  the 
following  of  his  example  as  the  appointed  means  of  our 
being  perfected.'  Scarcely  touching  on  St.  Paul's  words 
"ransom,"  "reconciliation,"  "justification,"  he  teaches  that 
Christ,  by  His  suffering  and  death,  performed  once  for  all 
the  work  of  an  Eternal  High  Priest— offered  that  sacrifice 
of  Himself  w^iich  purges  the  consciousness  of  man  from  its 
sense  of  guilt,  and,  as  our  forerunner  and  standard-bearer, 
flung  open  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  the  archetypal  world, 
wherein  man,  purified  from  guilt,  can  enter  into  the  Pres- 
ence of  God — in  hope  and  humble  access  now,  in  beatific 
vision  hereafter  behind  the  veil.* 

(5.)  In  seizing  upon  Priesthood  and  Sacrifice,  rather 
than  on  the  Law^  as  the  central  point  of  his  treatment,  the 
writer  showed  his  deep  knowledge  of  Jewish  feeling.  Not 
only  do  the  regulations  respecting  worship  occupy  the 
greater  part  of  the  Book  of  Leviticus,  but,  as  we  shall  see 
further,  the  imagination  of  the  people  had  almost  concen- 
trated itself  upon  priestly  functions,  and  especially  upon  the 
Great  Day  of  Atonement.  A  glance  at  the  Talmud  will 
show  how  large  a  part  Priesthood  occupied  in  the  thoughts 
of  every  Jew.  Thus  we  are  told  of  the  Priests  that  their 
descent  from  Aaron  was  the  badge  of  exclusive  privilege  ;* 
that  in  the  faithful  days  of  the  first  Temple  each  High-priest 
enjoyed  an  average  of  23  years  of  office  ;  "^  that  when  he  was 
admitted  to  service  he  was  inspected  by  the  Sanhedrin,  and 
if  there  was  so  much  as  a  mole  on  his   body  he  w^as  dressed 


son  to  whom  the  ransom  was  paid  was — the  Devil  !  Such  a  notion  would  have  been  abhor- 
rent to  the  Alexandrian  monotheism  ;  and  that  the  notion  of  a  ''warfare  or  lawsuit"  between 
Chri-.t  and  Satan  should  for  so  many  hundred  years  have  formed  a  constant  element  of  Church 
trachmg  respecting  the  mystery  of  the  Atonement,  from  Augustine  to  Anselm,  is  one  of  the 
many  historic  facts  which  should  abate  the  towcrins;  pretensions  of  an  inferential  theology. 

*•  '4-  __  2  3j.g  Davidson,  Iittrod.  ii.  245. 

u.  9,  10;  xii.  6-11;  V,  9;  TeAetuxri?,   "perfectionmcnt,"  is  a  characteristic  word  of  this 
Kpistle,  and  it  seems  to  include  both  "justification,"  "  sanctification,"  and  "glorification." 
<  yi.  20 ;  X.  20.     It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  points  in  which  the  writer  is  not  distinctively 


Taulinc  are,  (i)  the  prominence  of  reAeiwcrts  rather  than  of  6i(cata><n?  ;   (2)  the  conception  of 
Christ  less  as  the  Crucified  and  Risen  than  as  the  sympathetic  High  Pnest ;   (3)  the  concep- 


(sec  iii.  71 

I-.  Ptr. ).     (5)  He  holds  more  closely  to  the  I,XX.  and  the  readings  now  found  in  Cod.  Alex- 
uHciriitus,  whereas  St.  Paul  follows  those  now  foun<l  in  Cod.  Vaticavus  (Hleek). 

'•'  ll-rarhoiii.  f.  vo.  a.  »  Voma,  f  9,  n. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.       211 

in  black  and  dismissed  ; '  tliat  even  if  priests  were  unworthy, 
no  one  was  to  think  evil  of  them;'  that  if  a  priest  was 
found  to  be  Levitically  unclean  while  performing  the  Tem- 
ple service,  his  juniors  might  at  once  drag  him  out  of  the 
Temple  and  brain  him  with  clubs.^  The  very  garments  of 
the  priests  were  not  only  used  to  make  wicks  for  the  great 
candlestick,''  but  were  regarded  as  so  holy  that  they  had  the 
faculty  of  atoning  for  sin — the  tunic  for  murder,  the  ephod 
for  idolatry,  the  girdle  for  evil  thoughts.^  One  passage  will 
still  further  show  their  estimation  :  ''  So  lofig,"  says  the 
tract  Gittin,^  commenting  on  Ezek.  xxi.  26,  **as  there  is  a 
diadem  on  the  head  of  a  priest,  there  is  a  crown  on  the 
head  of  every  man.  'Ikemove  the  diadem  from  the  head  of 
the  high -priest,  and  you  take  away  the  crown  from  the  head 
of  all  the  people." 

(6.)  There  is  yet  another  point  on  which  we  may  seize 
as  marking  the  difference  between  the  writer  and  St.  Paul. 
It  is  perhaps  an  accident  that  he  uses  a  phrase— '' to  Him 
that  made  Him  "  (iii.  2)' — which,  though  capable  of  perfectly 
simple  explanation,  yet  lent  itself  with  so  much  facility  to 
the  misinterpretations  of  heresy  that  it  acted  as  one  of  the 
causes  which  delayed  the  general  acceptance  of  the  Epistle 
by  the  Church.  But  it  is  no  accident  that  the  writer  in  three 
passages  (vi.  4—8;  x.  26 — 31;  xii.  16,  17)  uses  language  of 
such  unconditional  sternness  that  it  was  seized  upon  with 
avidity  by  those  who  held  the  uncompromising  tenets  of  the 
Montanists  and  Novatians.  No  such  passages  are  to  be  found 
in  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  The  fulness  of  almost  universal  hope 
which  marks  the  outbursts  of  emotional  eloquence  in  his 
epistles,  shows  that  such  language  could  hardly  have  been 
used  by  him  without  large  qualification.  It  is  true,  as  I 
have  shown  in  dealing  with  those  passages,  that  they  lend 
no  real  sanction  to  the  conclusions  which  have  been  built 
upon  them  ;  and  that,  if  they  did,  they  w^ould  stand  in  fla- 
grant contradiction  to  other  passages  of  Scripture.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  real  thoughts  of  the  writer  would  have  coin- 
cided with  those  of  St.  Paul  ;  but  the  use  of  language  which 
lends  itself  to  perversion  with  so  much  facility  is  yet  another 
mark  that  his  idiosyncrasy  differs  from  that  of  the  great 
Apostle. 

»  Yoma,  f.  19,  a.  2  Kiddushin,  f.  70,  b.  3  Sanhedrin,  f.  81,  b. 

*  Shabbath,  f.  21,  a.  \  Zevachim,  f.  88,  b. 

*  Fol.  7,  a.     These  and  other  passages  are  quoted  in  Mr.   Hershon's  Tabitudic  Miscel- 
lany, p.  107.  '  See  the  note  on  this  passage. 


212  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

If,  then,  there  be  these  marked  differences  between  the 
aspect  of  the  same  great  Christian  verities  as  viewed  from 
the  standpoint  of  St.  Paul's  individuality  and  that  of  the 
writer  of  tliis  Epistle,  it  is  idle  to  pretend  any  longer  that 
St.  Paul  was  the  author.  The  differences  are  there.  No 
one  can  any  longer  overlook  them.  And  if  the  differences 
are  there,  it  is  clear  that  the  ancient  guesses  about  an  ama- 
nuensis who  used  the  thoughts  of  St.  Paul,  but  expressed 
them  in  his  own  language,  fall  to  the  ground.'  We  are, 
therefore,  studying  the  w^ork  of  another  writer  of  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  who  thought  for  himself,  and  who  wrote  in  his 
own  manner.  The  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  a 
mechanical  dictation,  which  makes  a  nian  the  pen  rather  than 
the  penman  of  sacred  utterance,  and  obliterates  the  plainest 
landmarks  of  human  idiosyncrasy.  It  is  a  positive  gain  to 
us  that  we  have  here  the  treatise  of  a  great  follower  of  the 
Pauline  school  of  thought — a  school  which  was  so  com- 
pletely overshadowed  by  the  mighty  genius  of  the  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  that  it  scarcely  produced  a  single  other 
writer  of  remarkable  eminence.^ 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

WHO  WROTE  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  ? 

"  Auctor  Epistolae  ad  Hebraeos  quisquis  est,  sive  Paulus  sive  ut  ego  arbitror  ApollO." 
— LL'THER,  ad  Gen.  xlviii.  20. 

'•Quis  porro  earn  composuerit  non  magnopere  curandum  est.  .  .  .  Sed  ipsa  dicendi  ratio 
et  stilus  alium  quam  Paulum  esse  satis  testantur." — Calvin. 

If  the  author — and  by  author  I  do  not  mean  merely  the 
amanuensis,  but  the  actual  originator  of  this  Epistle — were 
not  St.  Paul,  who  was  it  ?  I  have  already  indicated  my  be- 
lief that  it  was  ApoUos,  and  it  is  now  necessary  to  furnish 
the  grounds,  both  positive  and  negative,  for  that  all  but  cer- 
tain conclusion. 

The  autlior  does  not  adopt  the  invariable  practice  of  St. 
Paul  by  beginning  his  Epistle  with  a  greeting  in  his  own 
name,  although  it  is  clear  that  he  meant  his  readers  to  know, 


'  SchweRlcr  supposes  that  the  writer  tried  to  pass  for  Paul  {NachaJ>.  Zeit.  ii.  304),  and 
was  amply  refuted  by  Kostlin.  Theol.  Jahrb.  1853,  P-  420  :   iS^,  p.  437. 

'  The  notion  of  Hase,  that  the  Epistle  is  by  a  Nazarene  heretic  and  addressed  to 
Nazarcncs,  though  partially  favoured  by  Ritschl  (Altkatkol.  Kirche  f second  edition),  p.  159), 
needs  no  further  notice  (see  Hilgenfeld,  F.inUit.  359).  Every  sober  enquirer  now  acquiesces 
in  the  opinion  that  the  Epistle  represents  Pauline  views,  but  coloured  by  Alexandrian  influ- 
ences, and  leaning  to  the  Jewish-Christian  standpoint,  so  far  as  this  wa<=  possible  to  any  fol- 
lower of  St.  Paul.     (Sec  IJaur,  Thrcf  Christian  Cent.  i.  115,  scqq.;. 


WHO  WROTE  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  ?      213 

bot'ii  from  the  Epistle  itself  and  through  the  bearer  of  it, 
who  he  was  ;  nor  is  his  treatise  full  of  tliat  rich  element  of 
personality  which  lends  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles  so  indefinable 
a  charm.  But  yet,  from  the  Epistle  itself  we  see  certain 
broad  facts. 

(i.)  The  writer  was  a  Jew,  for  he  writes  as  though  Hea- 
thendom were  practically  non-existent. 

(2.)  He  was  a  Hellenist,  for  he  exclusively  quotes  the 
Septuagint  version,  even  where  it  diverges  from  the  original 
Hebrew." 

(3.)  He  had  been  subjected  to  Alexandrian  training,  for 
lie  shows  a  deep  impress  of  Alexandrian  thought,  and  quotes 
from  Alexandrian  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint,  without 
pausing  to  question  the  accuracy  of  the  renderings.^ 

(4.)  He  was  a  man  of  great  eloquence,  of  marked  origin- 
ality, of  wide  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  remark- 
able gifts  in  the  application  of  Scripture  arguments. 

(5.)  He  w^as  a  friend  of  Timotheus,  for  he  proposes  to 
visit  the  Jewish  Churches  in  his  company. 

(6.)  He  was  known  to  his  readers,  and  writes  to  them  in 
a  tone  of  authority. 

(7.)  He  was  not  an  Apostle,  for  he  classes  himself  with 
those  wdio  had  been  taught  by  the  Apostles. "' 

(8.)  The  Apostle  by  whom  he  had  been  taught  was  St. 
Paul,  for  he  largely,  though  independently,  adopts  his  phrase- 
ology, and  makes  special  use  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. "* 

(9.)  He  wrote  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
w^hile  the  Temple  services  were  still  continuing. 

(10.)  It  is  doubtful  whether  he  had  ever  been  at  Jerusa- 
lem, for  his  references  to  the  Temple  and  its  ritual  seem  to 
apply,  not,  indeed,  to  the  Temple  of  Onias,  at  Leontopolis,^ 
but  mainly  to  the  Tabernacle  as  described  in  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Pentateuch. 


1  In  one  remarkable  passage  (x.  30)  he  follows  St.  Paul  (Rom.  xii.  19)  in  a  variant  quota- 
tion of  Deut.  xxxii.  35. 

2  See  Bieek,  i.  357,  and  Heb.  ii.  3  :  Kostlin,  Theol.  Jahrb.  1853. 

3  Heb.  ii.  3.  Any  one  who  chooses  to  explain  away  the  obvious  meaning  of  this  verse  m 
the  interests  of  the  Pauline  authorship,  by  talking  of  "'■  anakoi/iosis"  or  '•  suukatabasis" 
must  do  so.  But  those  technical  words  are  here  inapplicable,  and  the  supposed  parallels  too 
illusory  to  need  refutation.  Serious  readers  will  see  how  impossible  it  is  that  such  a  phrase 
should  have  been  used  (and  that  to  Jewish  readers  !)  by  one  who  had  written  such  passages 
as  Gal.  i.  i.  12  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  2-4  ;  xii.  12  ;  Eph.  iii.  2,  3,  etc.  ^  V.  i»fra,  p.  344- 

5  See  Wieseler,  Untersitchung  iiber  d.  Hebr.  \  great  deal  too  much  has  been  made  of 
the  suggestion.  Philo  only  recognised  one  warpuiov  iepov,  and  the  Jews  of  Egypt  never 
dreamt  of  looking  on  the  Temple  of  Onias  in  the  same  light  as  the  Samaritans  looked  on 
Moimt  Gerizim,  namely,  as  a  rival  shrine  to  the  one  Temple,  to  which  they  .sent  their  yearly 
offerings.  The  conjecture  of  Wieseler  ought,  therefore,  to  be  finally  dismissed.  See  the  de- 
cisive remarks  of  GrStz,  Gesch.  d.  yuden,  iii.  31-34.  412- 


214  THE    KARLV    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Further  than  this  we  have  no  data*  on  which  to  decide 
the  question  of  his  identity  ;  but  we  may  fairly  assume  that 
we  should  lind  in  the  New  Testament  the  name  of  any  friend 
and  companion  of  St.  Paul  of  sufficient  authority,  learning, 
and  genius  to  have  been  the  author  of  so  remarkable  an 
Epistle.  Now,  the  only  known  companions  of  St.  Paul  who 
would  in  any  way  fall  imder  this  description  Avere  Aquila, 
Silas,  Titus,  Barnabas,  Clement,  Mark,  Luke,  and  ApoUos,' 
and  accordingly  several  of  these  were  conjecturally  desig- 
nated as  the  authors,  or  part  authors,  in  ancient  days.  "  As- 
suming, as  we  are  entitled  to  do,  that  it  was  one  of  these, 
the  only  way  to  decide  between  them  will  be  by  a  process 
of  elimination. 

The  claims  of  some  of  them  may  be  dismissed  at  once. 

1.  Aquila,  for  instance,  could  not  have  been  the  author ; 
for  the  fact  that  he  is  constantly  mentioned  with  his  wife, 
and  even  after  her,  shows  that  his  personality  must  have 
been  somewhat  insignificant,^  and  that  his  wife  was  superior 
to  him  in  energy. 

2.  Titus  could  not  have  been  the  author,  for  he  was  a 
Gentile. 

3.  There  is  nothing  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the  authorship 
of  Silas,"*  especially  as  he  seems  to  have  been  not  a  Hellen- 
ist, but  a  Jew  of  Jerusalem. 

4.  Tertullian,  in  his  usual  oracular  way,  attributes  the 
Epistle  to  Barnabas,  but  he  seems  to  have  done  so  by  an 
unsupported  conjecture.^  The  Epistle  is  incomparably 
superior  to  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  with  its  exaggerated 
Paulinism  ;  but  that  Epistle  is  not  by  the  Barnabas  of  the 
New  Testament,   and  is  not  earlier  in  date  than  a.d.  iio.° 


*  The  allusion  in  x.  34  has  no  bearing  on  the  authorship. 

*  'rimothciis  is,  of  course,  excluded  by  xiii.  23. 
s  .\cts  xviii.  18  ;   Rom.  xvi.  3  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  19. 

*  Only  held  by  Bohme  and  Mynster.  'J'he  former  supposed  that  the  Greek  of  i  Peter  was 
also  by  Silvanus,  and  that  it  resembled  the  Greek  of  this  epistle. 

^  Tert.  De  fiudicit.  20  :  "  Exstat  enim  et  Haniabae  titulus  ad  Hebraeos."  Perhaps  he 
had  heard  of  an  "  Epistle  of  Harnabas,"  and  confused  this  letter  with  it.  The  claims  of  Bar- 
nabas are  maintained  by  Camerarius,  Twesten,  Ullmann,  [Stttd.  u.  Krit.  828),  Thiersch 
{Comment.  Hist,  de  Ep.  ad  Hebr.  1847) — who,  however,  thinks  that  the  Epilogue  was  by 
St.  Paul,— and  Wioseler  [Chronol.  p.  504.  and  Untersuchung  iiher  den  Hebrderbrie/, 
1861).  Wicseler  .speaks  of  Terlullian's  assertion  as  the  only  authentic  tradition  on  the  subject. 
His  arguments  about  the  position  of  the  Epistle  in  the  Peshito,  etc.,  seem  to  me  to  be  very  in- 
conclusive. 'J'hicrsch  supposes  that  the  Epilogue  may  have  been  written  by  St.  Paul,  and  so 
too  Dclitzsch  (arguing  from  xiii.  8).    Renan  also  inclines  in  favour  of  Barnabas  (IJAntechrist, 

f».  xvn).     In  the  Clementine  Homilies  (i.  9),  Barnabas   (and  not  St.   Mark)  appears  as  the 
ounder  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 

f  jj-c  Harnack,  in  lierzug,  s.  i>.  Barnabas,  and  the  article  by  Heberle  in  the  old  edition. 
Hefelc  also  U'atr.  A/>ost.)  has  shown  how  impossible  it  would  have  been  for  the  Apostle 
Barnabas  to  see  m  the  Jewish  ceremonies  mere  foolish  carnal  mistakes  about  things  which 
Cjod  had  intended  to  be  understoofl  spiritually. 


WHO  WROTE  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  ?      21  3 

The  *' Apostle"  Barnabas,  as  a  Levite,  would  more  probably 
have  described  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  as  it  tJien  was,  and 
if  he  had  possessed  the  natural  ability  to  compose  such  a 
treatise  as  this,  he  would  not  have  been  so  immediately 
thrown  into  the  shade  by  St.  Paul  from  the  very  beginning 
of  his  first  missionary  journey.'  His  claims  have  received 
but  little  support,  and  he  would  have  been  indeed  unfortu- 
nate if  a  false  Epistle  was  attributed  to  him,  and  his  real 
Epistle,  which  was  so  far  superior,  assigned  to  another. 

5.  St.  Clement's  claims,  though  mentioned  by  several  of 
the  Fathers,"^  may  be  set  aside,  because  we  have  one  genuine 
Epistle  from  his  hands,  and — independently  of  differences 
of  view — that  letter  is  sufficient  to  show  that  he  had  not  the 
capacity  to  write  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Besides  this 
he  quotes  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  though  it  were 
of  co-ordinate  authority  to  the  rest  of  Holy  Scripture,  which 
he  certainly  could  not  have  done  in  the  case  of  any  writing 
of  his  own.^ 

6.  St.  Mark  has  never  been  seriously  suggested  as  the 
possible  author,  because  his  Gospel  presents  no  points  of 
analogy  to  this  Epistle  either  in  style  or  sentiment.  Further 
than  this,  it  is  probable  that  he  also  was  a  Jew  of  Jerusalem, 
and  his  connexion  with  St.  Peter  was  closer  and  more  per- 
manent than  his  connexion, with  St.  PauL 

7.  St.  Luke,  though  often  suggested  as  the  scribe  of  the 
letter' — on  the  hypothesis  that  the  thougiits  came  directly 
from  St.  Paul— could  not  possibly  have  been  the  author. 
It  is  true  that  in  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  we  frequently  find 
words  and  idioms  which  occur  in  this  Epistle.'  That  is  a 
phenomenon  which  is  not  difficult  to  explain  in  the  case  of 

»  I5p.  Wordsworth  [Introd.  p.  362)  adds  that  Epiphanius,  as  a  Cyprian  Bishop,  might 
have  been  supposed  to  know  the  work  of  a  fellow-Cypriot. 

2  E.g.,  Ongen  [v.  infra.  Excurs.  IX.),  EuthaHus,  Eusebius  (//.  E.  iii.  18),  and  Jerome. 
The  view  is  accepted  as  probable  by  Erasmus  and  Calvin.  Almost  the  only  modern  writer 
who  maintains  this  view  is  Riethmayer  (i^i;//<f//.  p.  681). 

3  It  is  strange  that  Euthalius  (a.d.  460)  should  say  tow  -yap  <cac  o-ti^et  toj/  xapcucTyipa., 
though  it  is  true  enough  that  many  of  the  sentiments  resemble  each  other  (/xJj  iroppu)  to.  ev 
eKartpoLi  Tol^  avyypdft.fia<n  voi^ixara.  KaOeaTavat,  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  38).  But  the  resemblance 
is  merely  due  to  direct  plagiarism,  while  the  difference  in  strength  and  originality  is  immea- 
surable. 

*  Clemens  Alex.,  Origen,  Grotius,  Hug,  Stier,  Guerike,  F.  Delitzsch,  Ebrard,  Bispmg, 
Wieseler,  Renan. 

5  Clemens  Alex,  observes  on  the  general  resemblance  of  style  {rov  avrov  XP*^"^?-)  between 
the  Epistle  and  the  .\cts.  The  parallels  are  tabulated  by  Liinemann  in  his  edition  of  the 
Epistle,  and  are  constantly  referred  to  by  Delitzsch  and  Ebrard.  Among  them  are  evAa^ettr- 
^ai,  et?  TO  Trai/TeAe'?,  rj-youjaei/o?,  apxrfyo^  (used  of  Christ,  Acts  iii.  15  ;  v.  31  ;  Heb.  ii.  10  ;  xu. 
2),  juapTvpovjaei'o?,  7rapo^i»(Tju.6<r,  /iie'roxos.  They  are,  however,  of  no  decisive  importance. 
See  Riehm,  Lehrbegriff,  p.  886,  note.  Moreover,  St.  Luke  more  closely  followed  St.  Paul's 
theological  views  and  expressions  (^  et?  XptaToi'  ttio-tis,  ^fcaioOo-flai  ef  *I>j<roO,  etc.,  Acts  xni. 
39  ;  Lk.  xviii.  14)  than  this  writer  does.     See  suj>ra,  cap.  xvi. 


2l6  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

two  writers  who  had  passed  through  the  same  kind  of  train- 
ing, and  had  lived,  perhaps,  in  each  other's  company,  and 
certainly  in  close  contact  with  the  mind  and  teaching  of  St. 
Paul.  But  in  spite  of  these  resemblances  the  style  and  the 
tone  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  differ  essentially  from 
those  of  St.  Luke.  Balanced  rhetoric  and  majestic  periods 
are  nowhere  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Evangelist,  and  it 
is  psychologically  difficult  to  believe  that  a  writer  whose 
prevailing  tone  of  mind  was  tender  and  conciliatory  should 
have  written  passages  of  such  uncompromising  sternness  as 
those  which  occur  in  Heb.  vi.  4 — 8  ;  x.  26  ;  xii.  27.  In  these 
passages  the  sternest  Montanists  exulted,  and  they  were 
used  as  bulwarks  of  the  Novatians  in  their  refusal  to  re- 
admit the  lapsed  to  Baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  but  they 
have  always  raised  a  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  those  who  re- 
ject the  ruthless  dogma  that  there  is  no  forgiveness  for 
post-baptismal  sin.'  Apart  from  these  considerations,  it  ap- 
pears to  be  almost  certain  that  St.  Luke  was  a  Gentile  Chris- 
tian,^ and  there  is  much  ground  for  the  tradition  which 
describes  him  as  a  proselyte  of  Antioch.  He  could  not, 
therefore,  have  written  this  Epistle.  It  may  be  regarded  as 
an  axiom  that  it  could  not  have  been  written  by  any  one  of 
Gentile  birth. 

8.  If,  then,  the  writer  was  neither  St.  Paul  nor  any  of 
these,  we  are  led  by  the  exhaustive  process  to  consider  the 
claims  of  Apollos,  and  we  at  once  find  not  only  that  none 
of  those  objections  can  be  urged  against  him  which  are 
fatal  to  the  claims  of  the  others,  but  also  that  he  meets  in 
every  one  of  the  ten  particulars  the  requirements  of  the 
problem.  He  was  a  Jew  ;  he  was  a  Hellenist ;  he  was  an 
Alexandrian  ;  he  was  a  friend  of  St.  Paul  and  had  been 
deeply  influenced  by  his  teaching  ;  he  could  not  have  been 
specially  familiar  with  the  Temple  ritual ;  he  was  remarkable 
for  originality  ;  he  was  an  attractive  orator  ;  he  was  a  power- 
ful reasoner  ;  he  was  a  man  of  great  personal  authority  ;  he 
taught  with  so  much  independence,  that  St.  Paul  formally 
recognised  liis  gift  of  maturing  and  preserving  the  germs 
'I  truth  wliich  he  himself  had  sown.'     Had  St.  Paul  and  St. 


'  Even  the  Novatians  did  not  exclude  the  hope  that  God  would  forgive  post-baptismal  sins. 
Aresiu*.  a  N'nvatian  Hishop,  said  that  "those  who  had  sinned  a  sin" unto  death"  coujd  not 
be  indeed  admitted  to  the  Christian  mysteries,  eATrt'fia  6e  t^s  a(j)€(reoii  .  .  .  napa  tow  ©eoO 
iK6txt<T0ai  (at  the  Council  of  Nice  ;  Socr.  //.  E.  i.  lo). 

"  Col.  iv.  11-15.     See  my  Life  of  St.  Paul,  i.  480. 

'  Some  of  these  peculiaritics'in  the  mind  and  manner  of  Apollos  are  illustrated  by  the  allu- 
sions to  the  partisans  who  used  his  name  in  Corinth  (i  Cor.  iii.). 


WHO  WROTE  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  ?      2  1/ 

Luke  deliberately  designed  to  point  out  a  man  capable  of 
writing  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  they  could  not  have 
chosen  any  words  more  suitable  to  such  an  object  than 
those  by  which  they  actually  describe  him  as  a  Jew,  an 
Alexandrian  by  birth,  an  eloquent  man,  and  mighty  in  the 
Scriptures,  fervent  in  spirit,  who,  after  having  been  carefully 
taught  the  way  of  the  Lord,  "began  to  teach  accurately  the 
things  concerning  the  Lord,"  and  powerfully  confuted  the 
Jews  out  of  the  Scriptures.*  Even  in  minor  matters  we 
trace  the  same  congruence  between  Apollos  and  the  writer  of 
this  Epistle.  We  are  told  that  he  w^as  originally  acquainted 
only  with  the  baptism  of  John,  and  this  writer  places  the 
**  doctrine  of  baptisms"  among  the  rudiments  of  Christian 
teaching."  We  are  told  that  "  he  began  to  speak  with  con- 
fident boldness  in  the  Synagogue,"  and  this  writer  has  a 
high  estimate  of  confident  boldness  as  a  virtue  which  the 
Christian  should  always  retain.^  Lastly,  we  see  in  Apollos 
the  rare  combination  of  a  dislike  of  prominence  with  a  re- 
markable power  of  oratory.  This  is  exemplified  in  his  re- 
fusal of  the  invitation  of  the  Corinthians,  some  of  whom  so 
greatly  admired  his  culture  and  oratory  that  they  preferred 
his  teaching  even  to  that  of  St.  Paul.  In  that  generous  re- 
fusal he  displayed  the  very  feeling  which  would  have  in- 
duced him  to  suppress  all  personal  references,  even  when 
his  readers  were  perfectly  well  acquainted  with  the  name 
and  antecedents  of  him  who  was  addressing  them. 

It  is  stated  as  an  insuperable  objection  to  this  theory 
that  the  Church  of  Alexandria  retained  no  tradition  that 
this  Epistle  was  written  by  their  brilliant  fellow-countryman. 
But  although  Apollos  was  an  Alexandrian  by  birth  and  by 
training,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  had  lived  in  his  native 
city,"  and  as  he  had  left  the  city  before  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian, he  may  have  been  a  stranger  to  the  Alexandrian  Chris- 
tians. We  do  not  hear  a  word  about  the  Epistle  in  that 
Church  until  a  century  after  it  was  written.  At  any  rate, 
this  difficulty  is  not  so  great  as  that  which  arises  from  the 
supposition  that  the  Epistle  was  the  work  of  St.  Paul,  and 
yet  was  not  recognised  as  such  for  some  centuries  by  the 
Western  Church,  and  only  partially  and  hesitatingly  by  the 


1  Acts  xviii.  24-28,  xix.  i  ;  i  Cor.  iii.  4-6. 
"  Acts  xviii.  26:  Heb,  vi.  2. 

5  Trapprjcria^ecrOat,  Acts  xviii.  26  ;  ttjv  irappri(Tiav,  x.  35  :   iii.  6. 

*  The  reading  of  D  (the  Codex  Bezae)  in  Acts  xviii.  24  (eV  Tj}  Trarpt'Si)  may  be  a  mere  con- 
jecture. 


• 


-^iS  THE    EAKLV    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

• 

Eastern  Church.*  For  there  would  be  every  temptation  to 
attribute  the  work  to  the  Apostle,  and  none  to  associate  it 
with  the  name  of  ApoUos,  wliich,  except  in  one  or  two 
Churches,  seems  to  have  been  but  little  known. " 

It  is  not  a  decisive  objection  to  the  Apollonian  author- 
ship that  no  one  is  known  to  have  suggested  it  before 
Luther.  We  hav^e  seen  that  in  the  early  centuries  the  Epis- 
tle was  only  assigned  to  this  or  that  author  by  a  process  of 
tentative  guesswork.  Those  who  saw  that  St.  Paul  could 
not  have  been  the  actual  author  often  adopted  one  of  the 
arbitrary  hypotheses,  that  it  is  a  translation,  or  that  the  sen- 
timents and  the  language  were  supplied  by  different  persons. 
The  self-suppression  of  Apollos  resulted  in  the  comparative 
obscurity  of  iiis  work,  and  the  Fathers,  having  nothing  but 
conjecture  to  deal  with,  fixed  upon  names  every  one  of 
which  was  more  generally  familiar  than  that  of  the  eloquent 
Alexandrian.  And  if  it  be  strange  that  the  name  of  Apollos 
should  not  have  been  preserved  by  the  Church  to  which  the 
letter  was  despatched,  we  may  account  for  this  by  the  ab- 
sence of  superscription,  and  by  the  fact  that  it  was  only  ad- 
dressed to  the  Jewish  section  of  that  Church.  This  much 
may  be  said  with  certainty,  that  if  it  were  not  written  by 
Apollos,  at  any  rate  the  evidence  which  points  to  him  as  its 
author  is  more  various  and  more  conclusive  than  that  which 
can  be  adduced  to  support  the  claims  of  any  one  else  It  is 
a  greater  testimony  in  his  favour  that  his  name,  when  once 
suggested  by  a  flash  of  happy  intuition,  should  have  been 
accepted,  with  more  or  less  confidence,  by  an  ever-increas- 
ing number  of  trained  and  careful  critics  of  all  schools,^  than 
that  it  should  not  have  occurred  to  the  less  laborious  and 
penetrating  examination  of  writers  in  the  early  centuries. 
To  suppose  that  even  an  Origen  or  a  Jerome — much  less  an 
Augustine— subjected  the  Epistle  to  that  minute  compara- 
tive study,  word  by  word  and  line  by  line,  which  it  has  since 
received  from  writers  like  Bleek  and  Tholuck,  and  in  its 
theological  aspect  from  Delitzsch,  Riehm,    Ebrard,  Reuss, 

*  The  last  paragraphs  are  more  in  the  style  of  St  Paul  than  any  of  the  rest :  and  even  in 
modern  times  this  has  led  Thiersch  and  others  into  the  opinion  that,  though  the  body  of  the 
Epistte  was  not  written  by  him,  yet  he  adopted  it  as  his  own,  and  wrote  the  last  chapter  with 
his  own  hand.  The  suggestion  is  untenable,  but  the  superficial  grounds  on  which  it  rests  were 
sufficient  to  lead  many,  in  uncritical  days,  to  assume  ihac  the  whole  Epistle  was  written  by  the 
great  Apostle  of  the  Oentiles. 

2  The  passages  on  which  we  can  alone  depend  for  our  knowledge  of  Apollos  are  Acts  xviii. 
24-28  ;    I  Cor.  iii.  4-6  ;   xvi.  12  (comp.  Rom.  xvi.  3  ;  2  lim.  iv.  19)  ;  Tit.  iii.  13. 

»  Luther,  Osiander,  I,c  Clcrc,  Heumann,  L.  Muller,  Semler.  Ziegler,  Dindorf.  Bleek,  Tho- 
l"' **'  ^x.''***^*^'''  R'-"'^*'"  Rothe,  Keilmoser,  Lutlerbeck,  Guerike,  De  Wette,  Liinemann,  Alford, 
Kurz.  Davidson,  Plumptrc,  Moulton.  A  few  writers— r.^.,  R.  Kbstlin,  Moll,  Ewald,  Riehm 
— think  thai  ihc  name  of  the  author  is  undiscoverable. 


WHO  WROTE  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  ?      219 

and  Pfleiderer,  is  to  ignore  facts.  The  decision  of  the  future 
will  be  that  it  was  cither  written  by  Apollos  or  by  some 
writer  w4io  is  to  us  entirely  unknown. 

As  to  the  date  of  the  Epistle,  our  only  clue  is  furnished 
by  the  certainty  that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  in  a.d.  70,  and  by  the  allusion  to  the  liberation 
of  Timothcus.'  Had  it  been  written  after  the  fall  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  arguments  of  the  writer  might  have  been  stated 
with  tenfold  force.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
for  instance  (4,  16)  is  able  to  treat  very  differently  a  similar 
line  gf  reasoning.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  came  like 
a  Divine  comment  on  all  the  truths  which  are  here  set 
forth.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  difficulty  that  Josephus,^  the 
Mishna,  the  Gemara,  the  Epistles  of  Barnabas,^  and  Cle- 
ment,* and  Justin  Martyr  ^  continue  to  speak  of  the  Temple 
worship  in  the  present  tense  after  the  City  and  Temple  had 
been  destroyed."  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we  are 
dealing  not  with  a  figure  of  speech,'- but  with  the  structure 
of  an  argument.  A  writer  who  could  argue  as  in  Heb.  x.  2, 
without  adding  the  tremendous  corroboration  which  his 
views  had  received  from  the  Divine  sanction  of  History, 
could  not  have  written  the  Epistle  at  all. 

The  allusion  to  Timothy  is  too  vague  to  admit  of  any 
certain  conclusion  being  founded  upon  it.  It  is  probable 
that  Timothy  obeyed  the  summons  to  come  immediately  to 
Rome  wiiich  he  had  received  from  St.  Paul,^  and  that  in  the 
then  exacerbation  of  the  imperial  government  against  the 
Christians  he  so  far  shared  in  the  peril  of  the  great  Apostle 
as  to  have  been  thrown  into  a  prison.  He  may  have  been 
subsequently  set  free  because  of  the  harmlessness  of  his 
character  and  the  lack  of  evidence  against  him.  If  so,  this 
Epistle  must  have  been  written  soon  after  the  year  of  St. 
Paul's  death,  at  the  end  of  a.d.  67,  or  the  beginning  of  a.d. 
6S.  This  date  suits  well  with  the  allusions  which  indicate 
that  the  first  generation  of  Christians  had  already  passed, 
or  was  rapidly  passing,  away. 

It  was  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  exclusively — to 
Jews  by  birth,  who,  though  they  had  been  converted,*  were 

1  Heb.  xiii.  23.  2  Jqs.  AniL  vii.  6,  §§  7-12  ;  c.  Afion,  i.  7  :  "•  8,  23. 

3  Ep.  Barnab.  7.  4  Clemens  Rom.  i.  40.  ^  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  107. 

®  This  argument  is  used  by  Keim  {yesu  vou-  Nazara.  i.  148,  636),  who,  with  Volkmar  ( iT^"/. 
JesH,  388)  and  Holtzmann  (in  Schenkel's  Bibellexicon),  tries  to  bring  down  the  date  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  persecution  of  Domitian. 

'  See  Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.  381.  ^  2  Tim.  iv.  9,  21. 

^  Heb.  ii.  3,  4  ;  iv.  14  ;  v.  it  ;  vi.  i  ;  viii.  i ;  x.  19,  etc.  Comp.  Acts  vi.  i.  Hase  supposes 
that  it  was  addressed  to  a  group  of  Palestinian  Nazarites  ;  Stuart,  that  it  was  written  by  St. 
Paul  to  Caesarea  ;  Boehme,  that  it  was  sent  to  Antioch. 


220  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

in  iininincnt  danger  of  apostas}^  and  who  had  been  subject- 
ed to  persecution,  which  was  not,  however,  so  severe  as  to 
have  led  to  many  martyrdoms/  If  we  could  assume  that 
the  last  four  verses  were  a  special  postscript  to  some  partic- 
ular Church,  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  letter  was  rather 
intended  as  a  treatise  in  which  Jews  were  addressed  in  the 
abstract  \''  but  even  then  it  must  have  been  sent  in  the  first 
instance  to  at  least  one  Church. 

i.  That  this  was  not  the  Church  of  Jerusalem "  is  all  but 
certain.  It  is  true  that  the  Mother  Church  might  have  been 
specially  interested  by  all  that  the  writer  says  ;  but  the  saints 
of  Jerusalem  would  have  been  hardly  likely  to  w^elcome  a 
letter  from  a  Hellenist,  which  only  quoted  from  the  Septua- 
gint,  and  which  was  written  in  Greek.  Moreover,  it  can- 
not be  said  of  them,  in  any  ordinary  sense,  that  "they  had 
not  yet  resisted  unto  blood;"  nor  w^ere  they  in  a  position 
to  minister  to  the  saints,"  being  themselves  overwhelmed  in 
the  deepest  poverty ;  nor  would  it  be  likely  that  no  allusion 
should  have  been  made  to  the  fact  that  some  of  them  must 
have  actually  heard  the  words  and  witnessed  the  sufferings 
of  Christ;  nor  would  any  of  St.  Paul's  companions  have 
been  entitled  to  address  them  in  the  tone  of  authority  w^hich 
the  writer  adopts  ;  nor  were  the  Christians  of  Palestine  spe- 
cially interested  in  Timothy.  A  Paulinist  in  the  position  of 
Apollos  could  not  have  ventured  to  reproach  the  Church  of 
the  earliest  saints  in  such  words  of  severe  and  authoritative 
rebuke  for  their  ignorance  and  childishness  as  occur  in  Heb. 
V.  II — 14.  This  passage  is  alone  sufficient  to  show  the  un- 
likelihood that  the  "Hebrews"  addressed  are  the  Pales- 
tinian Christians.^ 

ii.  Corinth,  which  would  otherwise  be  naturally  conjec- 
tured, is  excluded  by  the  allusion  (ii.  3)  which  points  to  a 
Church  founded  by  one  of  the  original  Twelve  Apostles. 

»  Wieseler  {[/ntersuchun§^,  ii.  3,  seq.)  has  conclusively  proved  that  the  term  "  Hebrews'' 
need  not  be  confined  to  Palestinian  Jews.  (See  2  Cor.  xi.  22;  Phil.  iii.  5.)  Josephus  origi- 
nally wrote  his  "  Jewish  War"  in  Aramaic,  yet  he  tells  us  it  was  meant  for  Jews  all  over  Asia 
(sec  Tholuck,  Hebr.  p.  97).  Moreover,  it  is  far  from  certain  that  the  superscription  Trpb? 
'E^pai'ous  is  genuine.  From  the  Muratorian  Canon  we  might  suppose  that  in  another  inscrip- 
tion it  was  called  *'  to  the  Alexandrians." 

^  So  Knthalius  thought  ;  rrao-i  tois  e/c  TrepiTOfx^?  Trio'Teucrao'iJ'  'E^paioi?.  Delitzsch  is  there- 
fore mistaken  when  he  says  that  it  was  the  unanimous  ancient  opinion  that  it  was  addressed 
to  Judxa. 

3  nov  Bi  ov<riv  ine<TTt\\etf  ;  e^ol  Sotcei  ev  'Iepo(roAw/xot?  koI  IlaAaio-Tivjj,  Chrysost.  Prooem. 
in  Hehr.  ;  and  so,  loo,  Ihcodorot.  This  is  the  view  of  Hleek,  De  Wettc,  Tholuck,  Thiersch, 
Delitzsch,  l.iinemann,  Richm,  Kbrard,  Lange  ;  but  the  notion  is  being  gradually  abandoned. 
It  sprang  from  the  Greek  Fathers,  and  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  it  is  necessitated  by  the 
title  "the  saints"  (i  Cor.  vi.  i  ;  2  Cor.  i.  i  ;  viii.  4,  etc.).  ■»  Heb.  vi.  10. 

*  Kbrard  supposes  that  it  was  meant  for  Christian  neophytes  at  Jerusalem,  who  were  ren- 
dered anxious  by  being  excluded  from  the  I'emple-worship. 


WHO  WROTE  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  ?      221 

iii.  Alexandria*  would  have  seemed  probable,  and  has 
in  its  favour  the  dubious  allusion  of  the  Muratorian  Canon  ; 
but  Timothy  had  no  relations  with  Alexandria,  and  (which 
is  a  far  more  serious  objection)  it  is  unlikely  that  a  Church 
like  that  of  Alexandria  would  have  forgotten  the  authorship 
of  a  letter  by  one  of  their  own  countrymen,  if  it  had  been  in 
the  first  instance  addressed  to  them.''^ 

iv.  If  our  conjecture  about  Timothy's  imprisonment  be 
correct,  it  could  not  have  been  addressed  to  Rome,  which 
otherwise  has  many  considerations  in  its  favour.^  It  was 
well  known  to  St.  Clemens  of  Rome,  and  some  of  the  allu- 
sions of  the  Epistle  might  suit  the  Neronian  persecution. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  tortures  spoken  of  are  somewhat  dis- 
tant in  time  (ras  irporcpov  rjfxefjasy  X.  32),  and  the  Roman 
Church  more  than  any  other  /mt/  resisted  unto  blood/  We 
have  no  hint  in  the  New  Testament  that  Apollos  ever  visited 
Rome ;  and  a  writer  addressing  the  Jews  of  that  city,  and 
familiar  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,^  would  hardly  have 
ignored  the  existence  of  the  Gentiles.  Again,  although 
this  hypothesis  would  indeed  account  for  the  conviction  of 
the  Roman  Church  that  the  Epistle  was  not  written  by  St. 
Paul,  it  would  be  difticult  to  explain  why  Clement,  who 
knew  the  Epistle — and  who,  if  it  had  been  sent  to  the  Ro- 
man Church,  must  from  the  nature  of  the  case  have  known 
the  name  of  the  writer — handed  down  no  tradition  on  the 
subject.  If  we  must  single  out  one  Church  as  the  probable 
recipient  of  the  letter,  it  would  be  the  Jewish  portion  of  the 


1  Heb.  ii.  3.  See  Dean  Plumptre's  argument  in  the  Ex/>ositor,\.  428-432,  that  it  is  ad- 
dressed to  Christian  ascetics  connected  with  Alexandria.  I'he  notion  that  it  was  addressed 
to  Alexandria  is  adopted  by  Schmidt,  Bleek,  Credner,  Volkniar,  Kbstlin,  Bunsen  {Hippo- 
lytiis,  i.  365),  Hilgenfeld,  Ullmann,  Schleiermacher,  and  Wieseler  {Chron.  496). 

2  Schleiermacher,  Einleit.  445  ;  Ad.  Maier,  Hehr.  4.  If  ev  rfj  narpiSi,  the  reading  of  D 
in  Acts  xviii.  25,  is  correct,  Apollos  had  been  converted  in  Alexandria.  Hilgenfeld  {Einleit. 
357)  gets  over  the  difficult}'  by  supposing  that  it  may  have  been  addressed  as  -a private  letter 
to  one  section  of  the  Church. 

3  It  was  suggested  by  Wetstein  {N.  T.  ii.  386),  and  supported  at  length  by  Holtzmann 
(Bunsen's  Bibelivcrk,  viii.  432  ;  Stud.  u.  Krit.  iSsg),  Kurtz,  Renan,  and  Alford  {Introd. 
to  Hebre7(is).  It  is  the  view  of  Eichhorn,  Schulz,  Baur,  Holtzmann,  etc.  Ewald  thinks  it 
may  have  been  written  to — Ravenna  !  Wilibald  Grimm  fixes  on  Jamnia  ;  Hofmann  on  the 
Jewish  section  of  the  Church  at  Antioch. 

^  This  expression  must  surely  refer  to  martyrdom  (since  aijixa  is  used  so  often  of  the  Blood 
of  Christ,  Eph.  ii.  13  ;  Rev.  vi.  10,  etc.),  as  /mexpis  davarov  does.  2  Mace.  xiii.  14  ;  Phil.  ii.  8. 
The  context  also  points  to  this  meaning,  and  not  to  a  pugilistic  metaphor.  It  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  certain  that  eK^aviv  in  xiii.  7  means  martyrdom. 

^  The  following  are  some  of  the  parallels  between  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  that  to 
the  Romans  : — 

Rom.  xii.  1-21.  Heb.  xiii.  1-6  ;  x.  30. 

xiv.  7.  xiii.  9. 

XV.  33.  xiii.  20. 

In  Heb.  x>i  30  there  is  a  quotation  which  agrees  neither  with  the  Hebrew  no»-  the  T,XX.  of 
Deut.  xxxii.  35,  but  is  also  found  in  Rom.  xii.  19,  efi.ol  e«5i'»cjj(ris,  iyia  OLvro-n^^i^aau). 


222  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Church  of  Ephesus,  where  botli  Apollos  and  Timotheus  were 
well  known,  and  in  which  tliey  had  both  laboured. 

The  place  from  which  the  Epistle  was  written  can  only 
be  a  matter  of  guess,  since  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  it, 
and  least  of  all  the  expression  ''they  of  Italy"  in  xiii.  24. 
That  clause,  as  we  shall  see,  is  quite  vague.  It  may  equally 
well  imply  that  the  Epistle  was  written  in  Italy,  or  in  any 
Church  in  which  there  happened  to  be  a  few  Italian  Chris- 
tians. 

We  hear  of  Apollos  for  the  last  time  in  the  Epistle  to 
Titus  (iii.  13),  where  we  find  that  he  was  expected  in  Crete 
during  the  course  of  some  missionary  journey.  At  that  point 
he  disappears  from  Christian  history  ;  but  he  wuU,  as  we  be- 
lieve, speak  to  the  Church  to  the  end  of  time  in  the  eloquent 
teachings  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE  HEBREWS. 


"...  Nihil  iiiteresse  cujus  sit,  cum  ecclesiastici  viri  sit,  et  quotidie,  ecclesiarum  lectione 

celebretur." — Jer.  Ep.  129,  ad  Dardanutn. 

"  Das  ist  einc  starke,  machtige,  und  hohe  Epistel." — Luther.  ^ 

"  Of  this  ye  see  that  the  Epistle  ought  no  more  to  be  refused  for  a  holy,  godly,  and  catholic 

than  the  other  authentic  Scriptures." — ^Tyndale. 

SECTION   I. 

THE   SUPERIORITY   OF  CHRIST. 
"Christus  vincit,  Christus  regnat,  Christus  imperat." — Inscription  on  Obelisk  at  Rome. 

Having  now  examined  all  that  can  be  ascertained  respect- 
ing the  author  of  the  Epistle,  and  the  circumstances  in 
which  it  originated,  we  are  more  in  a  position  to  follow  the 
outline  of  its  teachings.  The  waiter's  main  object  was  to 
prevent  the  Jewish  Christians  from  apostatising  under  the 
stress  of  persecution,  by  convincing  them  that  they  would  find 
in  the  finality  and  transcendence  of  the  Christian  Faith  a 
means  of  perfection  and  a  path  of  blessedness  which  the 
shadow  of  their  old  ceremonial  Judaism  could  never  afford. 
This  end  he  achieves  by  a  comparison  between  Christianity 
and  Judaism  under  the  double  aspect  of  (i)  the  Mediators  be- 
tween (xod  and  man,  by  whom  they  were  respectively  rep- 
resented, and  (2)  the  nature  of  the  blessings  which  they  were 
calculated  to  impart. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  233 

Of  those  five  familiar  divisions, — greeting,  thanksgiving, 
didactic  nucleus,  resultant  moral  application,  final  saluta- 
tions and  benedictijDns — which  constitute  the  normal  struct- 
ure of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  first  two  are  entirely 
wanting.  The  writer  begins  with  the  statement  of  his 
thesis,  that  God  has  given  to  the  world  by  His  Son  the  com- 
plete and  final  revelation  of  His  will.  Christians  were 
taunted  by  Jews  as  apostates  from  Jehovah  and  renegades 
from  Moses,  who  had  abandoned  the  Law  which  had  been 
delivered  by  the  mediation  of  Angels,  and  had  proved  faith- 
less to  the  Aaronic  priesthood  ;  they  were  told  that  by  ac- 
cepting as  their  Messiah  a  crucified  malefactor  they  had 
forfeited  all  the  blessings  and  promises  of  the  Old  Cove- 
nant. It  is  the  object  of  the  writer,  first,  to  convince 
them,  with  many  an  interwoven  warning,  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God,  is  above  all  mediators  and 
all  priests,  and  the  sole  means  of  perfect  and  confident  ac- 
cess for  all  men  to  the  Holy  Sanctuary  of  God's  Presence. 
He  therefore  proves  that  Christ  is  above  Angels/  and  that 
this  supremacy  was  in  no  sense  weakened  by  His  earthly 
humiliation,  which  was  the  voluntary  and  predestined  ne- 
cessity whereby  alone  He  could  have  effected  His  redeem- 
ing work  ;  that  He  is  above  Moses  by  His  very  nature  ; 
ABOVE  Joshua,  because  He  leads  His  people  into  their  true 
and  final  rest  ;  like  Aaron  in  being  called  of  God  and  in  be- 
ing able  to  sympathise  with  men,  but  above  Aaron,  first 
because  His  Priesthood  is  eternal  and  not  hereditary,  and 
next  because  He  is  personally  sinless,  and  thirdly  because 
His  Priesthood  was  established  by  an  oath,  and  most  of  all 
because  of  the  incomparable  benefits  resulting  from  it.  He 
is  only  to  be  paralleled  by  the  mysterious  Melchizedek,  the 
kingly  Priest  of  Peace,  anterior  and  superior  to  Aaron, 
springing  from  another  tribe  than  that  of  Levi,  and  belong- 
ing to  an  earlier  and  loftier  dispensation  than  that  of  Sinai. 
He  is  at  once  the  unchangeable  Priest  and  the  sinless  sacri- 
fice. And  this  change  of  Priesthood  involves  a  change  of 
the  Law,  and  the  introduction  of  a  New  Covenant,  and  an 
entrance  into  the  true  archetypal  sanctuary  which  God 
made  and  not  man. 

Having  thus  in  the  first  eight  chapters  shown  the  supe- 


J  "Messiah  is  greater  than  the  Patriarchs,  Moses  and  the  Ministering  Angels." — Vnlkut 
Chadash^  f.  144,  h  (Schottgen).  I  am  also  referred  to  Yalkut  Shimotti,  pt  2,  f,  53,  3  :  *'  He 
shall  be  exalted  above  Abraham  and  shall  be  extolled  above  Moses,  and  shall  be  more  sublime 
than  the  Ministering  Angels." 


224  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

riority  of  Christ  to  all  those  to  whom  was  entrusted  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  Mosaic  Covenant,  he  proceeds,  secondly, 
in  the  ninth  and  tenth  chapters,  to  show  the  vast  superio- 
rity of  this  New  Covenant  as  the  fulfilfing  of  the  shadowy 
types  and  symbols  of  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle,  and  as  having 
rendered  possible— not  by  the  impotence  of  repeated  animal 
sacrifices,  but  by  the  blood  of  Christ  once  offered— a  per- 
fect purification  from  sin.  Under  the  New  Covenant  as 
under  the  Old  there  is  sin  and  the  need  of  expiation,  and 
therefore  in  the  New  Covenant  as  in  the  Old  there  is  a 
Temple,  a  Sacrifice,  and  a  High  Priest— only  that  these  are 
not  temporary,  but  eternal  ;  not  human,  but  Divine.' 

On  the  basis  of  this  double  comparison  of  the  two  cove- 
nants as  regards  their  agents  and  their  results  he  passes,  (i) 
into  exhortations  to  confidence  and  steadfastness  in  that  faith 
of  which  he  records  the  many  memorable  triumphs  ;  (2)  into 
warnings  against  the  awful  peril  of  apostasy  and  willing  sin  ; 
and  (3)  into  practical  inculcations  of  duties  both  general 
and  special,  ending  with  a  few  brief  personal  messages,  and 
a  single  word  of  benediction. 


The  keynotes  of  the  Epistle  are  the  phrases,  "  By  how 

MUCH     more"    (ocro)    fxa/.Xov),    and     ''A      BETTER     COVENANT" 
(/cpetrrojv  StaOT^KY)). 

In  one  grand  sentence,  eminently  original  in  its  expres- 
sions, and  pregnant  with  thoughts  which  would  be  capable 
of  almost  indefinite  expansion,  the  writer  states  the  thesis 
on  which  he  intends  to  base  his  warnings  against  the  peril 
and  folly  of  retrogression  into  an  imperfect  and  abrogated 
dispensation. 

"  God,  who  in  many  portions^  and  in  many  manners^  of  old^  spake  to  the 
fathers  in  the  prophets'  at  the  end  of  these  days*  spake  unto  us  in  His  Son, 
whom  He  appointed  heir  of   all  things,  by  whom  also  He  made  the  world  ; ' 

>  See  Reuss,  ThM.  Chret.  ii.  274. 

J  Not  giving  at  once  a  final  and  perfect  revelation,  but  revealing  Himself  part  by  part- 
lifting  the  veil  iold  by  fuld  (i  (Jor.  xiii.  9,  «  /m^povs  Jrpo^ijTevo/Ltev). 

'  Hy  promises,  types,  sacrifices,  Urim,  dreams,  voices,  similitudes,  prophets  specially  com- 
missioned. '  4  Malachi,  the  last  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  lived  B.C.  320. 

*  «V,  like  the  Hebrew  h  "iS~.     Cf.  i  Sam.  xxviii.  6 ;  Matt.  ix.  34. 

«  Compare  ix.  26.  A  recognised  Messianic  expression,  Dan.  viii.  17;  xii.  13.  The  "last 
days"  date  from  Christ's  Advent.  They  are  the  Ac/tarith  Jiaynmim,  the  <caipbs  Siop^wcrews 
and  the  cvvri^tia  tww  a'li^vtav.  With  them  ends  the  former  dispensation  (the  Olavi  hazzeh, 
the  aiSav  o^tos),  and  begins  the  Olum  habha^  or  the  fieWoiv  aliov.  'I'he  "'last  days'''  (Ja.  v. 
3)  are  to  be  ended  by  "  the  Inst  crisis"  (Katpb?  ecrxaTO?,  1  I'et.  i.  5  ;  i  Tim.  iv.  1),  after  which 
come  "  the  rest"  and  "  the  sabbatism  :  "  but  the  "  last  hour'''  has  be?un  (i  John  ii.  18). 

'  /./■/.,  "The  ages,"  Hebr.  Olamhn  ;  but  in  t/iis  Epistle  it  means'"  the  tJniverse,"  being 
used  in  its  Rabbinic  and  post-liihlical  sense,  as  in  xi.  3,  "  by  faith  we  believe  KaTyjpTiadat, 
Tovs  aiiavat ;  "  v.  i/f/ra  ad  loc.     Cf  Tobit  xiii.  6  ;   1  Tim.  i.  17  ;  Col.  i.  5  :  John  i.  3-10. 


THE    EPISTLE   TO    THE    HEBREWS.  225 

who  being  the  effulgence^  of  His  glory,  and  the  stamp  of  His  substance, "-i  and 
sustaining  all  things  by  the  utterance  of  His  power, ^  after  making  purification 
of  sins,'  sat  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  high  places,''  having  proved 
Himself  by  so  much  better  than  the  angels  as  He  hath  inherited  a  more 
excellent  name  than  they."  « 

In  this  powerful  introduction,  of  which  the  opening 
words  alone  are  a  marvellously  instructive  summary  of  tlie 
religious  history  of  the  w^orld  before  Christ/  he  declares  the 
dawn  of  the  last  aeon  of  God's  earthly  dispensations,  by 
setting  forth  the  supremacy  of  the  Son  of  God  over  all  cre- 
ated things,  and  the  finality  of  His  redemptive  Avork. 
Apart  from  the  stateliness  and  artistic  balance  of  the  lan- 
guage, we  find  in  these  three  verses  no  less  than  six  expres- 
sions which  occur  only  in  this  Epistle,"  and  at  least  nme 
constructions''^  which,  even  when  not  rare  in  themselves, 
occur  nowhere  in  St.  Paul,  together  with  others  which  occur 
but  once  in  all  his  thirteen  Epistles. 

The  manner  in  which  the  writer  here  introduces  his  sub- 
ject is  not  only  full  of  majesty,  but  it  also  goes  straight  to 
the  point.  In  a  tone  which  reminds  us  of  the  Christology 
of  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians  he  sets 
forth  the  supreme  exaltation  of  Christ  as  Light  of  (i.e., 
from  ii<)  Light  and  very  t>od  of  very  God'" — as  the  en- 
throned exalted  Purifier  from  sin.  He  specifies  particu- 
larly His  superiority  to  Angels.  The  necessity  for  doing  this 
points  not  so  much  to  those  seductive  influences  of  Essene 
speculation  against  which  St.  Paul  argues  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians— for  here  tliere  seems  to  be  no  danger  of  the 
7C'ors/ii/)  of  Angels — but  rather  to  the  Judaic  boastings  that 
their  fiery  Law  was  uttered  by  the  mediation  of  Angels  on 
Mount  Sinai,  and  must  therefore  be  superior  to  any  teaching 
of  man.     The  exaltation  of  Angels  was,  both  at  this  period 


1  Cf.  Wisd.  vii.  26.     Phiio,  De  Mtind.  Opif.  i.  35.     ''Light  of  {Ik)  Light." 
-  Ill  Philo,  De  Monarch,  ii.  p.  219,  the  Logos  is  compared  to  a  seal-ring.^ 

3  Col.  i.  17  ;  Eph.  vi.  10.     Similarly  Philo  calls  the  Logos  6e(rju.bs  twi^  aTravTwv. 

4  E,  K,  L,  M,  Syr.,  Copt.,  ^Ethiop.,  etc.,  add  61'  eauTOu,  "  by  liis  own  act."  This  is  in 
any  case  involved  in  the  middle  Troirjo-a/txevos.  In  "  purilication  "  there  may  be  a  glance  at 
Yom  Hiik/a'/>/>uri»i,  the  Day  of  Atonement,  Jj/iAcpa  roi)  /ca^apta/aoD.     (Ex.  xxix.  36,  LXX.) 

^  The  old  "  Ubiquitarian  "  controversy,  as  to  whether  "  the  right  hand  of  God  is  every- 
ivhere"  is  now  as  dead  as  hundreds  of  other  theological  controversies  once  waged  with  nuich 
dogmatic  bitterness.  ^  Namely,  the  title  of  '"  Onlj'-begotten  Son." 

^  The  paronomasia  of  the  first  words,  and  the  general  style  of  the  sentence,  ought  to  have 
been  sufficient  to  prove,  on  the  very  threshold,  that  the  Epistle  is  not  a  translation. 

•^  Hiipax  leg07)2Cfia,  as  far  as  the  New  lestaiiicnt  is  concerned.  TroAu/xepw?,  TToAvrpdrrw?, 
aTravyacTjaa,  \a.paKTr)p.  fMeyaKtixruvr},  Sia<f)op(ji)Tepoi'. 

^  nd\aL,  AaAvjcra?,  err'  e(TxdTOV  TOiv  i^/uepwi'  tovtwv,  (^e'pcov  (in  this  sense),  KaGapi<TiJ.ov  rcov 
aixaprtiav,  iv  ui/zTjAots,  toctovtu)  .   .   .   oo-oj,  KpeiTTuiV  (in  tiiis  sense),  SiarjiopcoTspov  napd. 

1"  It  is  strange  tliat  tlie  great  majority  of  clergymen,  in  reading  the  Niceiie  Creed,  should 
still  say,  "  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light" — which  is  surely  qi4itc  meaningless — instead  of  '•  God 
o/God,  Light  ^Light." 


.26  TIIK    KARLV    DAYS    OF    CIIRISTIANITV. 

and  long  afterwards,  a  tendency  of  Jewish  tliought.  In  the 
fourth  book  of  Esdras  we  find  many  specuhitions  about  the 
greatness  of  Gabriel,  Uriel,  Michael,  Raguel,  Raphael,  the 
starry  and  the  sleepless  ones.'  In  the  almost  contemporary 
Epistle  of  Clemens  of  Rome'  the  argument  is  agam  ex- 
panded and  enforced.  It  was  necessary,  tlierefoie,  to  show 
that  Christ  was  not  a  mere  man  whom  it  w^as  idolatry  to 
adore,  but  that  He  w\as  above  all  the  heavenly  Principal- 
ities and  Powers  ;  and  even  more  than  this— that  men 
themselves,  by  virtue  of  Christ's  work,  were  more  concerned 
than  Angels  in  the  aeon  of  future  glory.  That  Jesus  was 
the  Christ  and  the  Son  of  God,  he  does  not  need  to  prove, 
because  he  is  writing  to  those  who  had  accepted  Him  as 
their  Messiah  ;  but  it  was  necessary  to  show  that  this 
^lessiah  was  Divine,  and  that  even  the  angelic  heralds  of 
>inai'  shrank  into  insignificance  in  comparison  with  His 
eternal  and  final  work. 

This  he  proceeds  to  prove  in  the  remainder  of  the 
chapter  by  that  Scriptural  method  w^iich  was  to  the  Jews 
more  conclusive  than  any  other,  and  with  which  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul  have  already  made  us  familiar.  He 
does  so  in  a  mosaic  of  magnificent  quotations  from  the 
second,  the  ninety-seventh,  the  forty-fifth,  and  the  hundred 
and  second  Psalms,  and  from  Deuteronomy  and  the  Second 
IJook  of  Samuel. 

"  For  to  which  of  the  angels  said  He  ever,  My  Son  art  thou  ;  to-day  have  I 
hecottcn  thee?  *  And  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me 
a  Son  ?^  And  when  He,  again,'  bringeth  the  first  born  into  the  habitable  world, 
He  saith,  .And  let  all  the  Angels  of  God  worship  Him.'  And  of  the  Angels  He 
sailh,  Who  makcth  His  angels  winds,  and  His  ministers  a  flame  of  fire ; »  but 

»  See  Su/rrfutf.  Reiia.  i.  93.  "  Clem,  nd  Cor.  36. 

•  Apollos  j^vcs  no  sanction  to  Philo's  distinction  that  the  Ten  Commandments  were  uttered 
I'V  the  immediate  voice  of  f  "lod,  and  the  rest  of  the  Law  by  angels. 

*  I's.  ii.  7;  on  its  Messianic  interpretation  compare  Rom.  i.  4;  Acts  xiii.  3.  Kimchi  and 
'■     '  ■  •     •  '■■   :n  this  IxrinK  the  ancient  view.    Tiie  whole  clause  must  be  taken  together,  for 

I<:d  sons  ill  job  i.  6  ;  Dan.  iii.  25;  and  in  LXX.  (A)  Ps.  xxix.  1  ;  Deut.  xiv.  i, 
"—a  part  of  "  Dod's  Kternal  now." 
•  :      I'hilo,  A«'.  Allrg^.  iii.  8.     The  .illusion  is  perhaps  to  the  Incarnation. 
■   I'  iMcrcly  introduces  a  new  (|uotation,  as  in  i.  5  ;  ii.  13  ;  iv.  5,  etc.,  there  is 

I'     ''  ■  '   -:  very  stranjjc  mispl.acement  (hyperbaton).     l?ut  it  seems  better  to  ap- 

,  ...  V,  ..,.,  ;.)  ihc  1-iiial  Advent,  though  1  Imve  left  the  translation  ambiguous,  as  the 
It. 

xcvii.  7  (cf.  Dcut.  xxxii.  43).     The  T.XX.,  tlie  Syri.ac,  and  the  Vulgate  render  j^/<?- 

V  "  ang<-U,"  as  in  I's.  viii,  6,  etc.  :  the  Chaldee,  by  "all  who  worship  idols." 

J'»   <  "V    4.     It'.th  ayyiKov^  and  irfcvfiara  arc  dubious  ;  ayyikov<:  means  either  "  mes- 

rn^rr^•'    .r    "  .imyh  :  "  irvtvft.ara  cither  "winds"  or  "s/iirifs."     The  context  sliows  that 

''     •  '  "' •  ■■■  '■  "■   ",t.-,, (led /ic»v.     In  the  original //«•  row/t-.j/ seems  to  demand  an  in- 

ihc  winds  His  messenj?ers,  the  flaming  fire  His  ministers  "—but 

lis  make  this  difficult  to  .nccept.     See   Pcrowne,  'J'/te  Psaims,  ii. 

;      1  .         :       I'inic  notion  was  that  the  nngels  could  "clothe  themselves  with  the 

•     ■  '  .'"114  K'»f'"«"'  <^f  natural  phenomena/'  and  be  changed  into  wind  and  flame  (Wctst.  and 

:    tiwHj'cn.  tut  iitc.). 


THE    KPISTLE   TO    THE    IIEIJKEWS.  22/ 

to  the  Son,  thy  throne,  O  God,'  is  for  ever  and  ever.  And  the  sceptre  of  recti- 
tude is  the  sceptre  of  thy-  kingdom.  Thou  lovedst  righteousness,  and  hatedst 
lawlessness  ;  therefore  ditl  God,  thy  God,  anoint  thee  w  ith  the  oil  of  exaltation 
above  thy  fellows.^  And,  thou,  O  Lord,  in  the  beginning  didst  found  the  earth, 
and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  tiiy  hands.  They  shall  perish,  but  thou 
remainest.  And  they  all  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment,  and  as  a  mantle 
shalt  thou  roll  them  up,'  and  they  shall  be  changed  ;  but  thou  art  the  same, 
and  thy  years  shall  not  fail.^  But  to  which  of  the  angels  has  He  said  at  any 
time,  Sit  at  My  right  hand  until  I  make  thine  enemies  a  footstool  of  thy  feet.?  « 
Are  they  not  all  ministraut  spirits, '^  sent  forth  for  service  for  the  sake  of  those 
who  are  about  to  inherit  salvation  ?  "  ** 

This  mode  of  argument,  by  Scriptural  quotation,  has 
been  made  a  needless  stiuiibling-block,  on  the  groinid  that 
some  of  the  passages  here  adduced  in  proof  of  Christ's  ex- 
altation were  originally  addressed  to  David  and  Solomon, 
and  had  a  directly  liistorical  reference.  That  such  passages 
did  really  have  such  a  primary  reference  no  fair  reasoner  is 
likely  to  deny  ;  but  to  assert  that  they  had  such  a  reference 
only  is  to  repudiate  an  interpretation  which  they  may  ob- 
viously bear,  and  which  had  been  attached  to  them  by  the 
nation  among  whom  they  originated  for  centuries  before,  as 
well  as  for  centuries  after,  the  coming  of  Our  Lord.  Let  us 
take  these  quotations  in  order.  No  one  will  question  that 
the  second  Psalm  was  originally  a  song  of  trust  and  antici- 
pated triumph  in  times  of  gathering  war  ;  that  the  words  of 
2  Sam.  vii.  14  were,  in  the  first  instance,  addressed  to  Solo- 
mon ;  that  in  Ps.  xcvii.  7  (if  that  be  the  source  of  the  quo- 
tation), or  in  Deut.  xxxii.  43 — the  song  of  Moses— the 
"  Elohim"  are  bidden  to  worship  God  ;  that  the  forty-fifth 
Psalm  was  an  epithalamium  for  Solomon,  or  one  of  his  suc- 
cessors ;  that  in  Ps.  cii.  25  the  '*  O  Lord"  does  not  exist  in 
the  Hebrew,  and  that  the  words  are  addressed  to  Jehovah  ; 
that  even  the  hundred  and  tenth  Psalm  must  have  had  a 
contemporary  and  historic  meaning.  And  this  being  so,  if 
any  one  were  to  adduce  thes6  citations  as  a  proof  of  the  su- 
premacy of  Jesus  Christ  over  the  angels  to  one  who  began 

1  Ps.  xlv.  6,  7.,  ■  2  Or  "His  kingdom,"  X. 

3  Here  all  the  ancient  versions  x^vtAtx  F.lohim  as  a  vocative:  moderns  render  it  "Thy 
Divine  throne,"  as  i  Chron.  xxix.  23.  The  Jews  have  never  doubted  its  Messianic  interpreta- 
tion, and  the  Chald.  Paraphrast  on  vcr.  3  was,  "Thy  beauty,  O  King  Messiah,  is  greater 
than  that  of  the  Son  of  men"  (Schbttgcn).     See  Perowne.  i.  357. 

•*  cAi^ecs,  J<,  D,  read  aAAa^et?,  as  in  Hebrew  and  in  the  Alexandrian  MS.  of  the  LXX., 
which  this  Epistle  generally  follows. 

s  Ps.  cii.  25.  Although  "O  Lord"  (Kvpte)  is  not  in  the  original,  a  Christian,  writing  to 
Christians  who  accepted  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  might  quote  these  verses  m  a  Messianic  applica- 
tion, especially  as  he  has  already  said,  "  By  whom  also  He  made  the  world." 

8  Ps.  ex.  I.  The  fact  that  this  Psalm  was  prominently  used  by  our  Lord  without  dis- 
pute in  a  Messianic  sense  shows  incontestably  that  in  the  Priest-King  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chizedek  all  readers,  Jewish  as  well  as  Christian,  would  at  once  accept  a  type  of  the  Messiah. 

^  They  render  service  (AetTOvpyt'a)  to  God,  and  aid  (hi.ojf.ovia)  to  men. 

8  Heb.  i.  5-14. 


jjS  the  early  days  of  Christianity. 

by  (icnving-  altogether  the  Messianic  import  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  arguments  could  not  have  any  weight  until 
this  method  of  applying  the  Old  Testament  had  been  justi- 
fied. But  to  pass  through  these  preliminary  reasonings  was 
in  this  case  needless.  ApoUos  is  arguing  with  the  Hebrews, 
and  arguing  with  them  on  admitted  principles.  Those  He- 
brews \ve  re  Christians.  He  had  no  need  to  begin  by  prov- 
ing to  them  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  That  part  of  his 
work  had  been  mightily  accomplished  many  years  before. 
It  would  have  been  necessary  only  for  unconverted  Jews, 
whom  he  is  not  addressing.  But  even  Jews,  if  they  were 
once  convinced  on  this  point,  would  have  been  compelled 
to  accept  his  further  arguments.  Their  whole  religion  was 
ultimately  resolvable  into  a  Messianic  hope,  and  their  whole 
method  of  Scriptural  study  was  Messianic  application.  It 
was  an  accepted  rule  of  their  interpretation  that  everything 
which  the  Prophets  had  spoken  they  had  spoken  of  the 
Messiah.  Calvin,  in  his  great  commentary,  thinks  it  suf- 
ficient to  say  that  the  New  Testament  writers  make  a  pious 
use  of  such  passages  by  infusing  into  them  a  new  meaning. ' 
But  no  Jewish  scribe  or  Christian  Apostle  would  have  re- 
garded himself  as  making  a  strained  use  of  these  qu(jtations. 
To  such  readers  the  passages  derived  their  chief  importance 
from  the  pnjphetic  meaning  which  had  always  been  assigned 
to  them.  The  Christological  application  cannot,  and  is  not 
meant  to,  disturb  the  historical  foundation  of  such  passages; 
but  mystical  extensions  of  the  language,  and  inferential  de- 
ductions from  it,  were  in  the  inmost  nature  of  things  per- 
fectly tenable,  and  constituted,  indeed,  the  very  essence  of 
Jewish  exegesis. 

But  it  may  be  said  that,  however  conclusive  this  method 
of  argument  and  citation  may  have  been  to  the  Jews,  it  can- 
not be  so  to  us.  It  would  be  useless  and  dishonest  to  ignore 
that  such  a  remark  is  natural.  The  objection  was  felt  so 
strongly  even  by  Cardinal  Cajetan  that  he  says,  "  It  is  not 
quite  becoming  that  so  great  an  Apostle  should  use  such  an 
argument  in  a  matterof  so  much  importance."'  Myreplyis 
tliat  the  argument  ran  and  ought  to  be,  if  not  logically  conclu- 
sive, yet  full  of  weight  and  instruction  to  us.  It  may  be  that 
the  whole  result  of  our  iraininij:,  and   our  entire  method  of 


»  •*  Pii  dcflcctionc  ail  Christ!  personam  accommodat"  (Calvin,  in  Eph.  iv.  8).  He  calls 
t!ii»  method  of  application  int(tf>ya<Tia. 

'  "  .Minus  dccet  in  tami  re  tuntuin  Apostoliim  uti  tali  argumento."  Comment.  {af>.  Tho- 
luck,  66). 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  229 

criticism  lead  iis  to  attach  more  exclusive  import  to  tlie 
primary  application  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  not  to  allow 
its  full  force  to  the  Messianic  presentiment  which  largely 
moulded  the  language  of  Scripture.  Yet  how  is  it  possible 
for  us  to  deny  that  the  Jews  had  read  these  texts  in  a  Mes- 
sianic sense  for  ages  before  Christ  was  born,  and  in  many 
instances  continue  so  to  accept  them  ?  Is  it  not  further 
true  that  these  utterances  have  received  a  fulfilment  such  as 
was  attributed  to  them,  and  a  fulfilment  more  universal  and 
magnificent  than  was  ever  anticipated  by  those  who  received 
or  those  who  uttered  them  ?  Is  it  not  true  that  Jewish  liter- 
ature is  the  embodiment  of  Jewish  religion  ;  that  the  very 
heart  and  soul  of  Jewish  religion  was  the  Messianic  faith  ; 
and  that  in  Christ  that  Messianic  Faith  has  found  its  most 
glorious  accomplishment  ?  A  pious  Jewish  interpreter  might 
carry  a  modern  critic  with  him  when  he  said  that  much  of 
the  language  of  the  Old  Testament  respecting  the  ideal 
Man — the  ideal  Jashar— the  ideal  Israel — the  ideal  seed  of 
David  and  of  Abraham,  could  only  find  its  true  and  full  mean- 
ing in  the  promised  Messiah.  The  very  name  Ad<\.m^  said 
the  Rabbis,  involves  the  names  ^dam,  Z>avid,  J/essiah  ;  so 
that  the  mystery  of  Adam  is  the  mystery  of  the  Messiah.' 
The  Rabbinic  J//Vr^^/^  on  Ps.  civ.  i  is  that  God  lent  ''glory" 
to  Moses,  and  "honour"  to  Joshua;  but,  according  to  Ps. 
xxi.  6,  He  meant  to  lend  both  to  King  Messiah.  The  New 
Testament  quotations  are  all  based  on  the  principle,  no- 
where more  powerfully  expounded  than  in  this  Epistle,  that 
the  New  Testament  is  latent  in  the  Old,  and  the  Old  is  laid 
open  in  the  New — that  both  are  but  parts  of  one  system  of 
Divine  ideas,  moments  in  the  course  of  one  progressive 
revelation. 

With  the  extent  to  which  the  Old  Testament  writers 
themselves  realised  the  force  of  their  own  utterances  we 
are  not  immediately  concerned.  "Their words  meant  more 
than  they."  The  Spirit  who,  entering  into  their  holy  souls, 
made  them  Sons  of  God  and  Prophets,  gave  them  the  large 
utterance  which  has  reached  over  three  thousand  years,  and 
of  which  the  final  consummation  is  yet  afar.  The  grandeur 
of  prophecy  did  not  consist  in  mechanical  predictions,  but 
in  the  Faith  which  enabled  the  Chosen  People  to  support 
with  unflinching  allegiance  the  cause  of  right,  and  in  the 
Hope  which  burned  with  unquenchable  brightness  even  in 
the  depths  of  universal  gloom. ^ 

1  Nishmath  Chajim,  f.  152,  b. 


J30  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

But  wlicn  wc  liavc  given  their  fullest  weight  to  these 
..nsiderations,  we  must  still  admit  that  the  tendency  of  our 
exegesis  is  different  from  that  of  the  Jews.  We  find  in  this 
and  other  Epistles  a  style  of  Scriptural  application  which 
comes  home  with  less  force  to  us  than  it  did  to  its  earlier 
readers.  We  must,  however,  remember  that  this  mode  of 
argument  was  once  both  necessary  and  convincing,  although 
to" us,  with  the  widening  knowledge  of  centuries,  it  is  no 
longer  indispensable.  The  argument  from  some  of  the 
Messianic  Psalms  is  undoubtedly  to  be  taken  into  account 
amcjng  the  other  evidences  of  Christianity.  If  there  are 
other  Psalms  which  can  be  regarded  as  having  no  such 
evidential  value,  except  to  those  who  accept  the  ancient 
methods  of  interpretation — if  the  Prophetic  evidence  appeals 
to  us  with  less  force  than  of  old — the  Historic  evidences  of 
Christianity  have,  on  the  other  hand,  been  incomparably 
strengthened.  Different  methods  of  argument  appeal  with 
varying  force  to  different  ages.  This  is  nothing  more 
than  we  should  have  expected  from  the  fact  that  God  never 
willed  to  reveal  at  once  the  whole  mystery  of  His  dispensa- 
tions. His  revelations  (as  we  have  just  been  told)  come  to 
us  gradually  like  the  dawn — fragmentarily  and  multifarious- 
ly— in  many  portions,  in  many  ways. 

SECTION   II. 

A   SOLEMN    EXHORTATION. 

Having  tlius  proved  the  superiority  of  Christ  to  Angels, 
the  writer  pauses  for  a  word  of  warning. 

•'On  this  account  wc  ought  more  nbundantly  to  pay  heed  to  tlie  things 
heard,  lest  perchance  wo  should  drift  away  from  them.i  For  if  the  word  uttered 
by  means  of  angels"  proved  steadfast,  and  every  transgression  and  neglect  '■'  re- 
ccivfd  n  jMst  remmpensc  of  reward,  how  shall  we  '  make  good  our  escape  ^^  if 
w.  ■  it  a  salvation  ?  which,  having  begim  to  be  uttered  through  the 

I.  to    us  by  them  that  heard,"  (iod   attesting  it  with  them  by 

^  .  and  various   powers,  and   distributions  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

i-urUing  lo  iliii  will  "  (ii.  i — 4). 

'  wapififivitiify.  7n<\  aor.  suhj.  pass,  of  irappopeii'.     Cf.  Prov.  iii.  21,  bXX.,  vie  fir)  napap- 
^P*  ;.:  ■   *M»»»' ^oi'Ajj*'.      It  is  ihc  opposite  of  T7)p<c  i/.      "  I,i-st  pcnulvciUurc  wc  fleten  away" 
'' '  '• '   •     "If  1'  '  Ml  slip"  first  appears  in  tlic  dcncvan  P»il)lc  of  1560. 

iii.  19;   Dcui.  xxxiii.  2;  Ps.  Ixviii.  17:  Jos.   ,{>//f.  xv.  5,  3      See  on 

:.y  I.i/r  and  H'ork  0/ St.  Pitul,  ti.  149.     The  proHiincnre  given  to  the 

'•  Law  i«  still  more  obscrv.-ible  in  the  'lalmiid,  the  Targnins,  the  Mid- 

^'  "1    ">    th«:  tra<  t  '•.Mac.oih"  wc  arc  informed  that  the  tmly  words  actually 

»1  ^crc  the  J-  inf  ( ■oiiiiii.indiiicnt. 

111^    f .   .  iiiiiisMoii  ;  irapoxoi),  of  omission. 

r  deht  tlian  the  servant."  fi  eK4>evf6fX€fla. 

vc  written  tints.     He  always  insists  most  strongly  on  the  indc- 
•  ii'.ii,  and  his  gospel  (fJal.  i.  i,  etc.). 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  23 1 

After  this  exhortation  the  thread  of  argument  is  resumed, 
and  he  proceeds  to  show  that  this  destined  supremacy  of 
man  over  Angels  was  foretold  in  the  Scriptures,  and  has 
been  fulfilled  in  Jesus.  He  won  supreme  glory  by  willing 
suffering,  in  order  to  share  the  trials  of  those  whom  He  fs 
to  sanctify  and  lead  to  glory  as  sons  of  God.  This  brotlicr- 
hood  of  man  with  Christ  is  illustrated  by  passages  from 
Psalm  xxii.  and  Is.  viii.,  and  the  chapter  concludes  witli  a 
pregnant  summary  of  the  reasons  why  it  was— from  the 
human  point  of  view — necessary  that  Christ  should  conde- 
scend to  incarnation  and  death.  It  was  that  He  might 
bring  to  nought  the  lord  of  Death,  and  liberate  men  from 
the  lifelong  terror  of  death — it  being  His  aim  to  aid  men 
and  not  angels,  and  to  be  made  like  men  that  He  might 
show  the  sympathy  of  the  Infinite  with  the  finite  by  actually 
sharing  in  their  trials  and  their  life. 

"For  not  to  angels  did  He  subject  the  age  to  be, ^  respecting  which  we 
speak.  But  one  somewhere  -  testified,  saying,  Wliat  is  man  ^  that  tliou  remem- 
berest  him  ?  or  the  son  of  man,  that  thou  lookest  upon  him  ?  Thou  loweredst 
him  a  little  in  comparison  to  the  angels ;  •*  w  ith  glory  and  honour  thou 
crownedst  him  ;  all  things  didst  thou  subject  beneath  his  feet.  For  in  subject- 
ing the  universe  to  him,  He  left  nothing  unsubjected  to  him  ;  but  now  we  sec  ^ 
not  yet  the  universe  subjected  to  him,  but  we  look  upon"  Him  who  has  been 
for  a  little  time  made  low  in  comparison  of  angels — even  Jesus — on  account  of 
the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honour,-  in  order  that  by  the 
grace  of  God**  He   may  taste  death  '■>  on  behalf  of  every  man.     For  it  became 

'  Heb.  vi.  5.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  "Ace  to  be"  is  the  Messianic  Age.  But  when 
the  Messianic  Age  had  dawned— when  i/t/s  "future  age"  {o/u^n  Jial'ba)  had  become  "  p  res- 
sent"  [olam  hasze/i] — then  Christians  were  still  led  to  look  forward  to  yet  another  "future 
age."  The  olat/t  hnbba  is  the  Christian  dispensation,  in  its  /reseni  existence  here,  which  in- 
volves \x.s  future  perfectionment.  Ihe  olain  hnzzeh,  or  "  this  Age"  {aiiav  outos),  might  be 
applied  to  the  peiiod  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  regarded  in  its  Jewish,  Heathen, 
and  ivij>er/ect  Christian  aspect ;  and  the  *'  present  world,"  in  this  sense,  ii>as  subjected  to 
angels  (Deut.  xx.\il.  8,  LXX.,  "  according  to  the  number  of  the  angels  of  God  ;  "  Dan.  x.  13, 
20,  21  ;  Tobit  xii.  15).  In  point  of  fact,  the  horizon  of  the  "Age  to  be"  is  one  which  must 
ever  fade  before  us  until  we  reach  the  end  oi  this  Age,  and  of  all  things. 

2  This  vague  method  of  quotation  is  found  also  in  Philo  and  the  Rabbis.  Generally,  each 
quotation  is  referred  to  "God"  or  "the  Holy  Spirit,"  but  that  method  could  not  be  here 
adopted,  because  God  is  addressed. 

^  ti'SN — man  in  his  humiliation  and  weakness, 

*  Heb."  Elokim.  *  opianev.  "  ^Xenofiev. 

~  On  the  connexion  of  the  Crown  with  the  Cross  compare  Phil.  ii.  5-11  ("via  crucis,  via 
lucis"J. 

•^  The  reading  x<»pt?  ©fow  ("without  God,"  or  "except  God,"  now  only  found  in  MSS.  53 
and  67).  The  reading  x<^p"'?  ®'od  was  found  by  Origen  in  most  manuscripts,  and  by  Jerome 
in  some  {absque  Deo,  iti  quibusdam  exemplaribus) .  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  .spoke  with 
contempt  of  the  reading  xapiri,  as  meaningless;  but  X'«'P'5  seems  to  be  either  an  accidental 
misreading  oi xapiji,  or  a  marginal  gluss  on  ra.  itavTa  ("  might  taste  death  for  everything  ex- 
cept (Jod  ").  (Cf  I  Cor.  XV.  27.)  The  Nestorians,  however  (and  even  St.  Ambrose  and  Ful- 
gentius),  interpreted  it,  "  might,  apart  from  His  Di7iinity  {i.e.,  in  His  human  nature  on|y), 
taste  death."  Jf  accepted,  it  can  only  mean  "that  He  may  taste  death  for  every  bein^,  God 
excepted"  (i  Cor.  xv.  27).  Drs.  Westcott  and  Hort  (Greek  Test.  ii.  129)  regard  it  as  a 
Western  and  Syrian  reading  which  sprang  from  an  accidental  confusion  of  letters. 

"  A  common  Semitic  metaphor,  from  the  notion  that  Death  gives  a  cup  to  drink.  In  the 
Arabian  poem  "  Antar  "  we  find,  "  Death  gave  him  a  cup  of  absinth  by  my  hand." 


232  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


Him  for  whose  sake  are  all  things,  and  by  whose  means  are  all  things— in 
bringing  many  sons  to  glorv— to  perfect  by  means  of  sufternigs  tlie  Captain  i  of 
their  salvation.  For  the  Sanctifier  and  thev  who  are  being  sanctified  are  all 
from  one  for  which  cause  He  is  not  ashamed  to  call  thein  brethren,  saying,  I 
will  declare  thy  name  to  my  brethren,  in  the  midst  of  the  church  will  I  sing 
pr  \ise  to  thee.-'  And  again.  I  will  put  my  trust  in  Him  ;  and  again,  Lo,  1  and 
the  children  which  God  gave  me.a  Since  then  the  children  have  shared  in 
blood  and  flesh,*  He  Himself  also  similarly  partook  in  the  same  things,  in  order 
tint  by  means  of  death  He  may  render  impotent  him  that  hath  the  power  of 
death'  that  is  the  devil,^  and  may  set  free  tho^e  who  by  lear  of  death  through 
their  whole  life  were  subjects  of  slavery.  For  assuredly «  it  is  not  angels  whom 
He  takes  bv  the  hand,  but  it  is  the  seed  of  Abraham  whom  He  takes  by  the 
hand.'  Wherefore  it  behoved  Him  «  in  all  respects  to  be  made  hke  to  His 
brethren,  in  order  that  He  may  prove  Himself  merciful,  and  a  faithful  high 
priest  in'  things  that  relate  to  God,  to  expiate  the  sins  '•'  of  the  people.  For  in 
that  sphere  wherein '"  He  suffered  by  being  Himself  tempted,  He  is  able  to 
succour  them  that  are  being  tempted  "  (ii.  5—18). 

Having  thus  introduced  the  word  ''High  Priest,"  he 
might  have  proceeded  at  once  to  that  proof  of  the  nature 
and  superiority  of  Christ's  High  Priesthood,  which  is  the 
central  idea  of  tlie  Epistle.  But  he  was  arguing  with  Jews 
who  raised  Moses  to  a  pedestal  of  almost  Divine  eminence, 
in  their  enthusiasm  for  his  work  as  a  mediator  between  God 
and  tiieir  nation."     It  was  desirable,  therefore,  to  pause  and 

>  apxyryov  (Acts  v.  31).  In  Acts  iii.  15  it  means  "  the  Leader"  in  the  sense  of  "the  Author" 
or  "  Oginator."     Comp.  x'n.  2, //erzog-ZArer  Se/iir^eii  {Luther). 

'  Ps.  xxii.,  a  typico-prophetic  Psalm  (Matt,  xxvii.  46).  It  is  headed  in  otir  Hebrew  Bibles, 
"On  the  hind  of  the  dawn,"  which  the  Midrash  Tehillin  explains  to  mean,  "  On  him  who 
leaps— as  a  stag — and  brishtens  the  world  in  the  time  of  darkness"  (Mic.  vii.  8).  R.  Chija 
explained  it  of  i\\e  gradual  redemption  of  Israel. 

'  The  verse  continues,  "  Behold  I  and  the  children  which  God  gave  me  (viz.,  Mahershal- 
alhashbaz  and  Shearjashub),  are  for  signs  and  for  ivonders  in  Israel  from  the  Lord  of 
Hosts'"'  (Is.  viii.  18).  'I'he  names  of  those  two  sons  ('•Speed-plunder-haste-spoil"  and  "A 
remnant  shall  remain  ")  were  symbolical,  as  also  was  their  whole  position.  It  indicated  the 
relation  of  the  chosen  jjart  of  the  people  towards  God.  These  texts  are  not  (in  our  sense  of 
the  word)  proofs,  but  o'nly  symbols  and  illustrations. 

*  This  (as  in  Kph.  vi.  12)  is  the  order  in  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  M- 

'  Compare  Phil.  ii.  9  :  "  He  humbled  Himself,  becoming  subject  to  death,  etc."  The 
I>cvil  has  the  power  of  death,  not  as  Lord,  but  as  executioner.  (Cf.  John  viii.  44,  av^pcoTrox- 
Toi-o^otr'  ap)(T!\<i ;  Rev.  xii.  10.)  Wisd.  ii.  24,  "  By  the  envy  of  the  Devil  death  entered  into 
the  world."  i'he  Jews  called  Sammael  the  "Angel  of  Death,"  and  he  was  the  Devil  (Kisen- 
incn;;cr,  p.  821). 

*  ^i^Qv  \opinor)  in  Classic  Greek  has  a  semi-ironical  tinge.  It  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the 
New  Testament  or  LXX.,  but  is  common  in  Philo. 

^  .SV.,  "to  help  and  rescue"  (Matt.  xiv.  31,  etc.  ;  cf.  viii.  9).  Wisd.  iv.  11,  "Wisdom 
....  titkes  by  the  hand  those  that  seek  her."  By  the  "  seed  of  .\braham"  there  can  be  no 
dmibt  th.-it  the  writer  means  Jews,  liecause  throughout  the  whole  Kpistle  he  has  them  ex- 
clusively in  view  ;  but  of  course  he  did  not  for  a  moment  dream  of  excluding  the  spiritual 
Isr.icl.  "  The  obligation  is  involved  in  the  />ur/>ose  of  Christ's  assimilation  to  man. 

*  iKivKtaOtu,  "  to  expiate"  or  "propitiate."  It  is  never  connected  with  "  God,"  or  "  the 
wraih  of  (iod,"  either  in  the  LXX.  or  N.  T.,  because,  as  Delitzsch  says,  man  must  not  regard 
liai  rificc  as  an  act  by  which  he  induces  God  to  show  him  grace  ;  just  as  it  is  nowhere  said  that 
Christ's*  sacrifice  propiii.Tied  Cod's  wrat/t,  as  thotigh  that  sacrifice  had  in  any  way  anticipated 
Gud'it  own  yracious  purpose  (sec  Rom.  iii.  25  ;  Kph.  ii.  10).  It  represents  the  Hebrew  Ki/>- 
^er,  "  to  cover."  Conip.  Kcclus.  iii.  3,  "whoso  honourclh  his  father  maketit  an  atonement 
for  his  sinx  ;  "  30,  "  Alms  mak-rth  an  atonement  for  sins  ;  "  xx.  28  and  xxxiv.  19,  "  Neither 
»  he  p.icificd  for  sin  by  the  multitude  of  sacrifices." 

"  The  K.  v.  renders  iv  y  "  in  that" — i.e.,  **  forasmuch  as," — like  the  Hebrew  ba-asher  ; 
but  it  i«  more  simple  to  make  it  mean,  "in  that  jiarticular wherein."   Com.  vi.  17;  Rom.  iii.  3. 

"  This  will  be  seen  at  once  by  a  few  extracts  from  the'i'almud  about  Moses.  They  may  be 
found  in  M.unI  urjjcr's  Wdrterb.  and  Mr.  Hershon's  Genesis: — 

"Three  thmgs  did  Mojmss  ask  of  God  :   (i)  He  asked  that  the*  Shcchinah  might  rest  upon 


THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  233 

show  that  Christ  was  superior  not  only  to  the  angels  ]3y 
wliose  instrumentality^  but  also  to  Moses  by  whose  innnediatc 
agency,  the  Law  was  delivered  to  Israel.  In  doing  this  lie 
follows  the  lines  of  his  previous  demonstration.  He  has 
shown  that  the  angels  were  but  "ministering  spirits,"  and 
that  the  Son  is,  in  His  very  nature,  more  exalted  than  they 
(i.  5 — 14);  and  then,  after  a  few  words  of  exhortation  (ii.  i 
— 5),  he  has  proved  that  in  Christ  our  human  nature  is  also 
to  be  elevated  above  the  angels  in  the  "future  age  "  or  true 
Messianic  kingdom  (ii.  6 — 16),  since  Christ  as  our  High 
Priest  took  part  in  that  nature  (ii.  17,  18).  He  now  pro- 
ceeds to  show  that  Christ  is  higher  than  Moses,  inasmuch  as 
the  Son  is  higher  than  the  minister  (iii.  i — 6);  and  then, 
after  another  exhortation  (iii.  7 — 19),  that  the  future  belongs 
to  Christ,  and  not  to  Moses,  because  Christ  achieved  the 
work  of  bringing  Israel  into  the  promised  rest,  a  work  which 
Moses  had  left  imperfect  (iv.  i — 13).  The  angels  had  come 
in  the  name  of  God  before  Israel,  and  Moses  had  come  in 
the  name  of  Israel  before  God  ;  the  High  Priest  came  in 
the  name  of  God  before  Israel,  wearing  the  name  Jehovah 
on  the  golden  petalon  upon  his  forehead,  and  in  the  name 
of  Israel  before  God,  bearing  the  names  of  their  tribes  on 
the  oracular  gems  upon  his  breast.  Christ  is  above  the  An- 
gels, as  Son  of  God  and  Lord  of  the  future  world,  and  is  not 
only  the  messenger  of  God  to  men,  but  as  High  Priest  is 
the  propitiatory  representative  of  men  before  God.  The  dis- 
tinctive exaltation  of  Christ  above  Angels  and  above  Moses 
as  regards  His  mediatorial  work,  rests  in  His  High-Priestly 
office — a  truth  which  is  stated  in  that  hortatory  form  which 
continually  asserts  itself  throughout  these  two  chapters/ 

Israel :  (2)  That  the  Shechinah  might  rest  upon  none  but  Israel ;  and  (3)  That  God's  ways 
might  be  made  known  unto  him.    And  all  these  requests  were  granted." — (Herachoth,  f.  7,  a.) 

"The  soul  of  Moses,  our  Rabbi,  embraced  all  the  souls  of  Israel,  as  it  is  said,  Moses  was 
equivalent  to  all  Israel"  ("  Moses  our  Rabbi"  is  in  Hebrew,  by  Gcmatria,  =  613,  which  is 
the  numerical  value  also  of  the  Hebrew  words  for  "  Lord  God  of  Israel "). — (Kitzur  sh'lu,  p. 
2.)     Hershon,  Miscellanv,  p.  322. 

"The  Angels  asked  the  Holy  One,  Blessed  be  He  ...  .  Why  did  Moses  and  Aaron  die, 
who  fulfilled  the  whole  Law?  He  answered,  There  is  one  event  to  the  righteous  and  the 
Wicked."— (Shabbath,  f.  55,  b.) 

"Moses'  face  was  like  the  sun,  Joshua's  like  the  face  of  the  moon"  (Num  xxvii.  27). — 
(Bava  Bathra,  f.  75,  a.) 

"All  the  Prophets  saw  through  a  dim  glass,  but  Moses  saw  through  a  clear  glass."— 
(Yevamoth,  f.  49,  b.) 

"  P'ifty  gates  of  understanding  were  created  in  the  world  ;  all  but  one  were  opened  to  Mo- 
ses."— (Rosh  Hashanah,  f.  21,  b.) 

1  This  parallelism  of  structure  between  chaps,  iii.,  iv.  and  i..  ii.  is  well  drawn  out  by  Ebrard: 
I.  Christ  higher  than  ministering  spirits  (i.  II.  Christ  higher  than  Moses,  because  the 

5-14).  Son  is  higher  than  the  servant  (iii.  1-6). 

Exhortation  (ii.  1-5).  ,        lixhortation  (iii.  7-19). 

He   raises   humanity  above  angelhood   (ii.  In   Him   I.srael  has  entered  into  rest  (iv. 

6-16).  1-13). 

For  He  was  our  High  Priest  (ii.  17,  18).  Thus  He  is  also  our  High  Priest  (iv.  14-16). 


234  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

"  Wherefore.'  holy  brethren,'  partakers  of  a  heavenly  caHing.a  contemplate 
the  AiHjsde*  and  High  I'riesl  of  our  profession,  Jesus,  as  faithful  to  Him  that 
made  Hun  (such),'  a.s  also  Moses  was  faithful  in  all  his  house.«  For  He  hath 
bi-cti  ticcincd  w»)r(hy  of  more  glory  than  Moses,  in  proportion  as  He  who  es- 
xahlishod  (he  hou.'je  hath  more  honour  than  the  house.  For  every  house  is  es- 
tablished bv  svmie  one,  but  He  who  established  all  things  is  God.  And  Moses 
indeed  was' faithful  in  ail  his  house,  as  a  servant,  for  a  testimony  to  the  things 
\Nhich  were  to  be  afterwards  spoken  ;  ^  but  Christ  as  a  Son  over  His  (God's) 
liousc,  whose  house  are  we**  if  we  hold  fast  the  confidence  and  ground  of 
bo;isting  of  our  hope  firm  unto  the  end  "  *  (iii.  i — 6). 

"Then  follows  a  powerful  appeal  to  faith  and  faithfulness/' 
founded  on  the  exhortation  in  the  ninety-fifth  Psalm,  to 
hear  God's  voice  ''to-day,"  "  and  not  to  harden  the  heart 
au:ainst  liim,''^  as  the  Israelites  had  done  at  Massah  and  at 
Mcribah,'^  Avliich  had  resulted  in  God's  oath  that  they  should 
nut  enter  into  His  rest.'*  The  *' to-day"  of  the  Psalm,  re- 
peated by  David  five  hundred  years  afterwards,  shoAved  that 
the  "  to-day  "  of  God's  offered  mercy  had  not  been  exhausted 
in  the  wilderness,'^     God  had  offered  ''  a  rest"  to  His  peo- 


I'OOfp — i.f..  Since  wc  have  such  a  helper,  'OSev  (ii.  17;  viii.  3)  is  never  once  used  in  the 
l.pistlcs  of  St.  Paul  (iliough  once  in  a  speech.  Acts  xxvi.  19),  and  only  elsewhere  in  i  John 
li.  18.  ^  A  mode  of  address  never  once  used  by  St.  PauL 

*  "  Hcnvenly,"  because yV^w  heaven  and  calling  /^  heaven. 

*  'A»o<rroAoi',  Ijecause  "  scut  from  the  Father"  ( ajretrTaA^eVoi/  trapa  narpds),  as  the  High 
Priest  was  sometimes  regarded  as  a  messenger  {Sheliach]  from  God  (John  x.  36)  ;  sent  by 
Ciod  as  an  Aposdc  to  us  ;  going  from  us  as  a  High  Priest  to  God  ;  and,  therefore,  most 
strictly  a  Mediator.  The  title  is  referred  to  by  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  i.  12  and  63,  where  he 
s;iys  that  the  Word  of  God  is  called  an  angel,  because  He  announces  (aJra-yyeAAet),  and  an 
Apostle  because  He  is  sent  (ajroo-Tc'AAerai). 

'■'  The  expression  *'To  Him  that  made  Him"  (tco  Trot^o-am  auTor),  which  might  be  taken 
superficially  to  indicate  that  Christ  was  a  createdbeing^  caused  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle 
tu  l<e  sti>|>ectcil  (l^hilastr.  I/aer.  89).  But  even  if  this  sense  were  necessary,  it  would  merely 
refer  to  Christ's  human  Ijirth  [^corporalis  gffuratio,  Primasius),  as  Athanasius  understood  it. 
It  cannot  p<jssibly  refer  (as  bleek  and  Liinemann  suppose)  to  His  Eternal  generation,  though 
they  rightly  urge  that  rroiw,  with  an  accusative,  usually  means  to  create  or  make.  It  is  simpler 
<<>  iaiicrstan<l  it,  "  Who  made  Him  an  Apostle  and  tligh  Priest."  Compare  i  Sam.  xii.  6  (o 
TToiijaas  TOf  Mwvo-qv);  Mark  iii.  14;  Acts  ii.  36,  "God  made  Him  Lord  and  Christ."  So 
■•  (Ircck  Vathers  luiderstond  it  :  tI  iroirjo-ai'Tt ;  i-voQiokov  kox  apxi-fpea  (Chrys.);  iroiriaty 
.   .   .  Tiji' x«ipoTt)ria»' k<kA»}»c<!|' (Theodoret). 

*  .An  alluMon  to  Num.  xii.  7.     His  [i.e.,  God's)  House. 
'  *•  Hy  Christ"  (Deut.  xviii.  15). 

*  "  How  we  ought  to  walk  in  the  House  of  God,  seeing  that  it  is  the  Church  of  the  Living 
( '■<wl  "  ( I  'lim.  iii.  15).     "  \  c  arc  the  I'eniple  of  God  "  (i  Cor.  iii.  16). 

*  1"he  "  firm  unto  the  end  "  is  omitted  in  }\. 

'"  The  <ib  of  iii.  7  refers  on  to  the  /SAejrtT*  of  ver.  12,  the  intervening  words  being  a  long 

1^ •'■'■! 

II  I'Itcw  of  Ps.  xcv.  6  rather  is,  "  O  that  ye  would  hear  His  voice  ;  but  this  ejacula- 
t  ti'-n  rendered  in  the  LXX.  by  iav  (cf.  Ps.  cxxxviii.  19). 

'  •  Ktiii.ii  kubk,  as  HIeck  observes,  l>ecause  it  is  the  only  place  where  man  is  said  to  harden 
hi%  own /i«"fj>7,  which  is  usually  ascribed  immediately  to  God  (Ex.  vii.  3,  and  passint ;  Is. 
Ixiii.  17:  Kom.  ix.  16).  Man  is  usually  said  to  stiflen  his  neck  (Deut.  .\.  16,  etc.)  or  back  (2 
'^ V       P'Ut  wc  have  "  but  since  some  hardened  themselves"  (w?  hi  Tifcs  e<TKXripv~ 

■  r  follows  the  LXX.  in  rendering  it  "  In  the  cmbittcrment,"  as  though  the  Sev- 

•     read  "  Marah  "  for  "  Meribah."     In  Ex.  xvii.   1-7  they  render  it  Loidoresis, 

or  •■  kcproach."     Massah  and  Meribah  were  two  different  places  (Num.  xx.  1-13). 
'«  Num.  xiv.  38-30. 

'»  "  Few  thintt*  in  the  Epistle,"  says  Dr.  Moullon,  "are  more  remarkable  than  the  constant 
prckeniation  of  the  ihoiiKht  that  Scripture  languazc  '\s,  /'eriiinuent,  and  at  all  times  present." 
A^  rcjardft  the  forty  ycir-.  in  the  wil.lcriiess,  it  is  remarkable  that  forty  years  was  also  the 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  235 

pie,  but  through  unbelief  they  harl  f.-iiled  to  enter  into  it 
(ill.  7 — 19).'  '"Let  us  then  fear,"  lie  says,  "lest  luiply, 
though  a  promise  is  still  left  us  of  entering  into  His  resX, 
any  one  of  you  should  seem  to  have  failed  in  attaining  it.''' 
For  indeed  we  too,  just  as  they,  have  had  a  Gospel  preached 
to  us,  but  the  word  of  hearing  benefited  not  them,  since  they 
had  not  been  tempered  in  faith  with  them  that  heard  it."  ^ 

"  For  we  who  believed  are  entering  into  that  rest."  This 
he  proceeds  to  prove  by  the  argument  that  God  has  long 
ago  entered  into  His  rest  after  the  worlds  were  made  ;  and 
it  had  been  evidently  intended  that  some  men  should  enter 
that  rest  of  God.  Since,  then,  those  who  had  first  heard  the 
glad  tidings  of  promise  had  not  entered  into  God's  rest,  as  a 
punishment  for  their  disobedience,  the  promise  was  repeated 
ages  afterwards.  For  again,  after  so  long  a  time,  God  had 
in  the  Psalm  of  David  used  the  limiting  term  "to-day."* 
Clearly,  therefore,  Joshua^  had  not  led  Israel  into  any  real 
or  final  rest.  If  he  had  done  so  the  promise  of  rest  would 
not  have  needed  to  be  renewed. **  There  still  remains,  then, 
a  Sabbath-rest  for  the  people  of  God.  For  any  Christian 
who  entered  into  his  rest  (by  death)  ceased  from  his  labours, 
as  God  ceased  from  His  own  labours. 

"  Let  us,  then,  be  earnest  to  enter  into  thiit  rest,  that  no  one  fail  into  the 
same  example  of  disobedience.     For  living^  is  the  word  of  God,«  and  effectual, 

period  between  the  Crucifixion  and  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  that  according  to  Rabbi  Akhiva 
the  years  of  the  Messiah  were  to  be  forty  years  (Tanchuma.  f.  79.  4).  So,  too,  R.  Kliezer,  re- 
ferring expressly  to  Ps.  xcv.  10  (Sanhedr.  f.  99,  ti).  The  word  "always"  in  ver.  10  is  not  in 
the  original,  but  is  either  due  to  loose  citation  (for,  as  Calvin  says.  "  .Sciinus  apostolos  in  ci- 
tandis  testimoniis  magis  attendere  ad  suminum  rei  quam  dc  verbis  esse  solicitos  " ),  or  to  some 
slight  difference  of  reading.  The  "if  they  shall  enter"  is  a  Hebraism  for  *'  they  shall  not  en- 
ter" (cf.  ver.  18).     It  i-s  really  due  to  a  suppressed  apodosis  (Mk.  viii.  12). 

'  In  ver.  10  he  says  ''with  this  generation"  (}>J,  A,  H,  I),  M)  for  the  "  that"  of  the  I.XX. 
— no  doubt  intentionally  (compare  Matt,  xxiii.  36;  xxiv.  34).  In  ver.  15  vn-ooTacts  is  "con- 
fidence," as  in  Ps.  xxxviii.  7,  "  My  sure  hope  (LXX.  wjrdaTouris)  is  in  Thee." 

2  The  hoKxf  is  used  by  a  sort  of  litotes  to  suggest  to  ths  conscienc<*of  each  a  stronger  term. 
Ebrard  renders  it  "  lest  any  of  you  think  that  he  has  come  too  late  for  it,"  which  is  a  perfectly 
tenable  rendering,  but  unsuitable  here,  because  the  object  is  warning  against  presumption, 
not  encouragement  against  despair.  _  ^      ■    _ 

3  This  is  a  strange  expression,  and  the  reading  (rvy»ce(cpa/u,€Vos  in  the  E.  V.  is  certainly 
much  simpler ;  but  it  is  for  that  very  reason  suspicious  when  we  find  arvyKiKpatTfiefovi;  in  A, 
B,  C,  and  avvKeKepaafxivovi;  in  M.  The  meaning  will  then  be,  as  in  the  text,  that  the  NVord 
did  not  profit  the  rebellious  Israelites  because  they  were  not  blended  with  Joshua  an'l_  C.aleb 
in  their  faith.  Westcott  and  Hort  suspect  the  possibility  of  the  reading  toi?  oKOvaOflaiv,  or 
even  of  Noesselt's  conjecture  tois  a/coutr/iao-u'. 

•»  iv.  4,  eiprjKe,  "  He  (God)  hath  said"— a  method  of  citation  not  once  used  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles. 

5  iv.  8.  The  unfortunate  rendering  "Jesus"  in  this  verse  might  seem  as  if  it  were  ex- 
pressly designed  to  perplex  ignorant  readers.  _  ^^ 

6  iv.  8,  OVAC  av  mpl  aAXrjs  eAciAei,  "  He  would  not  have  been  speaking  of  another  day.' 
The  imperfect  is  in  accordance  with  the  writer's  habit  of  seeing  things  in  their  idvul  am- 
tinuity.  '  "•  Lining ox:\c\ci>"  (.\cts  vii.  38). 

s  Clearly  not  here  the  personal  Logos  in  St.  John's  sense,  though  many  Fathers  and 
divines,  who  wrote  far  more  from  the  theological  than  from  the  critical  point  of  view,  have  so 
understood  it.     No  doubt  that  meaning  may  lie  in  the  background,  but  if  so,  the  writer  has 


236  Till-    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

xn<\  kroner  than  anv  two-edged  sword,  and  cleaving  through  even  to  the  sever- 

1  uul  sp'irit   of  joints  and  marrow,'  and  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts 

,ons  ot  the  lieart.     And  tliere  is  not  a  created  thing  unseen  m  His 

,,,  ;it  all  things  arc  naked  and  laid  prostrate  '^  to  His  eyes,     lo  whom 

our  .tccounl  must  be  given."  ■* 


SECTIOxN    III. 

THE    HIGH    IMUESTHOOD   OF   CHRIST. 

Then  follows  tlie  transitional  exhortation  to  the  long 
proof  and  illustration  of  the  following  chapters. 

"  Having,  then,  a  great  High  Priest  who  has  passed  through  the  heavens- 
Jesus,  the  .Son  of  God— let  us  hold  last  our  confession.  For  »  we  have  nut  a 
HighVriest  wlio  cannot  sympathise  with  our  weaknesses,  but  one  who  has  been 
ttMnpted  in  ail  respects  just  as  we  are,  apart  from  sin.  Let  us  approach,  then,* 
with  confidence  to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  receive  mercy,  and  may 
find  grace  for  a  seasonable  succour  "  (iv.  14—16). 

^The  predominance  of  the  thought  of  Christ's  High  Priest- 
hood in  the  mind  of  the  writer  has  already  been  shown,  not 
only  by  the  two  last  verses,  but  by  his  two  previous  allusions 
to  it.  In  ii.  17  he  had  said  by  anticipation  that  it  was  ne- 
cessarv  for  Christ  to  take  a  human,  not  an  angelic,  nature 
from  the  moral  necessity  for  His  being  made  like  unto  His 
brethren,  ''that  lie  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  High 

purposely  /f//  it  in  the  background  ;  for  again  and  again  such  a  usage  seems  to  be  hovering 
"11  his  lips,  and  yet  he  docs  not  actually  adopt  it.  It  was  left  for  the  inspired  genius  of  St. 
I  >hn  to  adopt  the  term  "thk  Word"  into  the  theology'  of  Christianity,  and  in  adopting  it 
'  )  nlorify  cver>'  previous  and  analogous  usage  of  it  (x<ide  p.  587).  Ihe  word  of  God  is 
here  the  writteti  and  spoken  word  of  God,  of  which  again  and  again  the  writer  shows  that  he 
h:is  a  most  vivid  perception  as  a  living  reality  ;  there  may  also  be  a  sort  of  semi-personifica- 
t  >ri.  rti'-  I  •iinp.-«risr)n  was  also  familiar  to  Philo,  as  in  Quis  rer.  dk'.' hceres,  §  27  :  "Thus 
'■  hetted  that  Word  of  His  which  cutteth  all  things,   divides  the  shapeless  and 

•\<c  of  all  things."  It  is  clear  from  the  context  that  the  passage  was  known  to 
I'hild  also  speaks  of  the  Word  as  penetrating  even  to  things  called  invisible, 

u.itiin;  the  diflcrcnt  parts  nf  the  soul.     We  find  the  same  figure  m  Ps.  Ivii.  5,  etc.; 

16;   Wisd.  xviii.   15.  16.     *''rhine  Almighty  Word  leaped  down  from  heaven   .... 

iieht  thine  unfeigned  commandment  as  a  sharp  sword,  and  standing  up  filled  all 
'  ith  death." 

It  i".,  the  Word  of  God  pierces  not  only  the  natural  soul,  but  also  the  Divine  vSpirit, 

i  T  )  the  very  depths  of  these.     *'  Aniiiia   (i/fv^jj)  vivimus,  sf>iritu  {tfv^v\x.aTi)  intelli- 


M«pi«r^OM  m.av  mean  the  "  joint "  or  *'  articulation."     It  should  be  observed 
11  those  of  Philo,  the  </////Vrt//() 
iT^i/ra.      The  word  has  l>cen  rendered,    (i)   "seized  by  the    throat  and  over- 


v/frrssions  recall  those  of  Philo,  the  application  of  them  is  wholly  different. 


b.ick  by  thenctk.  hke  malefactors"  (Bleek.  etc.)  ;   (3)  "flayed  "  (Chrys.), 

V  the  Priest  in  his  ^w^ocrxoiria.  or  inspection  of  victims),  or  "  manifested  " 

.  or  "  s.icrificed  "   (  Thendoret).      Ihit  ''  laid  prostrate"  is    almost  un- 

V  ttic  n  ;i,t  meaning,  since  the  word  is  constantly  used  in  that  .sense  by  Philo. 

!    1>.  iw.  11-13.     'I'hiH  may  also  be,  as  in  the  E.  V.  (more  generally)— "with  whom  we 

■  do."     It  would  l)c  very  Ume  to  make  it  mean  "  with  reference  to  whom  we  arc  speak- 

I    .-        i>  in  v.  11). 

♦  (And  wc  may  «lo  this  with  perfect  confidence],  "for"— the  "for"  anticipates  an  objec- 
tion I  "  <«c  iip.it  objcctioncm,"  .Schlichting). 

'  nitoai(tx*<r»ax  is  a  favourite  word  with  this  writer  (vii.  25; :  x.  i,  22  :  xi.  6  ;  xii.  18-22), 
til oi^h  unlv  f.Mind  once  in  .St.  P.aul  (t  Tim.  vi.  3),  and  then  in  an  entirely  diflerent  sense, 
•  Ukc  heed,"     Wc  have,  however,  "  .icccss  "  (wpoj-aywfrj)  in  Eph.  ii.  i3  ;  iii.  12. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  237 

Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God."  In  iii.  i  he  had  solemn- 
ly invited  his  hearers  to  the  contemplation  of  Christ  as  our 
High  Priest.  It  had  been  necessary  for  him  to  pause  for  a 
moment  to  show  that  Christ  was  greater,  even  than  Moses, 
and  to  invite  his  readers  by  a  solemn  appeal  to  strive  to  en- 
ter into  tliat  rest  which  some  of  those  whom  Moses  led  out 
of  Egypt  had  failed  to  attain.  The  true  rest  which  Moses 
had  promised  was  a  rest  typified  by  the  Sabbath-rest  of  God. 
It  pointed  far  beyond  the  possession  of  Canaan  to  the  Ji/ia/ 
rest  which  remaineth  for  the  people  of  God.  Christ's  High 
Priesthood  is  a  pledge  to  us  of  a  grace  by  which  that  rest 
may  be  obtained. 

We  thus  reach  the  very  heart  of  the  Epistle,  for  the  de- 
velopment of  this  topic  occupies  nearly  six  chapters. 

First  he  lays  down  two  qualifications  which  must  be 
found  in  every  High  Priest,  namely, — 

i.  That  he  must  be  able  to  sympathise  with  men  by  par- 
ticipation with  them  in  their  infirmities  (v.  i — 3,  comp.  ii. 
17);,  '^"d, 

ii.  That  he  must  not  be  self-called,  but  appointed  by  God 
(4—10). 

That  Christ  possessed  the  first  of  these  qualifications  was 
self-evident,  and  had  indeed  been  expressly  stated  (comp. 
ii.  17). 

That  he  possessed  the  second  he  proves  by  a  reference 
to  His  eternal  Sonship  (Ps.  ii.  7)  and  His  Melchizcdek 
Priesthood  (Ps.  ex.  4). 

He  then  pauses  once  more  during  a  somewhat  long  di- 
gression to  express  his  sorrow  that  their  spiritual  dulness 
and  backwardness  made  it  needlessly  difficult  for  him  to  il- 
lustrate these  deep  truths  (v.  11 — 14).  He  therefore  urges 
them  to  more  earnest  endeavours  after  Christian  progress 
(vi.  I — 3),  partly  by  an  awful  warning  of  the  danger  of  re- 
lapse from  truth  (4 — 8),  and  partly  by  encouragements  de- 
rived from  the  activity  of  their  Christian  benevolence  (9,  10) 
and  the  immutable  certainty  of  the  promises  of  God  (11 — 
18).  These  inspire  a  hope  founded  on  this  Priesthood  of 
our  Lord  (19,  20),  which  was  a  Priesthood  not  merely  Aar- 
onic,  but  transcendent  and  eternal  after  the  order  of  Mcl- 
chizedek. 

Having  thus  cleared  away  every  preliminary  considera- 
tion, and  raised  them  by  his  warnings  and  exhortations  to  a 
state  of  mind  sufficiently  solemn  for  the  consideration  of  the 
subject,  he  proceeds  to  show  that  in  many  most  important 


238  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

particulars  the  Priesthood  of   Melchizedek  was  superior  to 
that  of  Aaron  ;  namely — 

i.   Because  it  is  eternal,  not  transient  (vii.  1—3). 

ii.  Because  even  Abraham  acknowledged  the  superior 
dii^niity  of  Melchizedek,  by  paying  tithes  to  him  and  receiv- 
ing his  blessing  (4 — 10). 

'  iii.  Because  the  Priesthood  of  Melchizedek  is  recog- 
nised in  the  Psalms  as  loftier  than  that  of  Aaron,— which 
implied  a  change  in  the  Priesthood,  and  therefore  in  the 
Law  (11,  12).  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  Lord 
sprang  from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  not  from  that  of  Levi  (13, 
14);  and  from  the  fact  that  the  Melchizedek  Priesthood, 
heing  eternal,  could  not  be  connected  with  a  Law  which 
perfected  nothing  (15 — 19). 

iv.  Because  the  Melchizedek  Priesthood  was  founded,  as 
the  Aaronic  never  was,  by  an  oath  (20 — 22). 

V.  Because  the  Levitic  priests  died,  but  Christ  abidetli 
forever  (23  —  25). 

lie  then  pauses  to  dwell  for  a  moment  on  the  eternal  fit- 
ness of  Christ's  Priesthood  to  fulfil  the  conditions  which 
the  needs  of  humanity  require  ;  and  proceeds  to  show  that 
as  Christ's  Priesthood  is  superior  to  that  of  Aaron,  so  is  His 
Ministry  more  excellent  as  belonging  to  a  better  Covenant 
(viii.  I — 6).  This  is  mainly  proved  by  the  fact  that  a  iie7o 
Covenant — and  therefore  a  better  Covenant — had  been  dis- 
tinctly prophesied  and  promised  (7 — 13). 

The  superiority  of  this  second  Covenant  is  shown  by  a 
comparison  of  the  ministry  of  the  High  Priest  entering  the 
Iluly  of  Holies  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  with  that  of 
Christ  passing  into  the  Heavens.  The  Levitical  High  Priest 
entered  the  Holiest  Place  but  once  a  year.  He  had  to  do 
this  year  after  year  ;  he  offered  for  his  own  sins  as  well  as 
fur  those  of  the  people  ;  his  sacrifices  could  not  cleanse  his 
conscience  ;  his  whole  service  stood  merely  in  connexion 
with  rites  and  ceremonies  of  a  subordinate  character.  But, 
'U  the  other  hand,  Christ  (i.)  entered,  not  a  symbolic  tab- 
'  rnacle,  but  the  Heaven  of  Heavens;  (ii.)  He  entered  it 
once  for  all,  and  forever;  (iii.)  He  had  no  need  to  make 
any  offering  {ox  His  own  sins,  being  spotless  ;  (iv.)  He  en- 
tered tiirough  His  own  blood,  which  (v.)  was  eternally  effica- 
'  ious  for  the  purging  of  the  conscience  from  dead  works; 
nd  (yi.)  His  whole  ministration  had  to  do  with  abiding 
:alitics,  not  with  passing  shadows  (ix.  i— 14).  Then,  lecl 
l)y  the  double  meaning  of  the  word  diathcke,  which  means 


J  (I 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  239 

both  *'  testament  "  and  ''  covenant,"  he  shows  that  the  blood 
of  Christ  was  necessary  to  sanctify  the  new  Covenant,  and 
was  efficacious  even  for  the  redemption  of  transgressions 
under  the  old  (15 — 22),  and  that  His  one  Death  has  wrought 
an  all-sufficient  expiation  (23 — 28).  He  concludes  the  argu- 
ment by  contrasting  the  impotence  of  the  Levitic  sacrifices 
to  perfect  those  who  offered  them — an  impotence  attested 
by  their  incessant  repetition — with  the  one  sacrifice  offered 
by  the  willing  obedience  of  Christ  (x.  r — 10).  Christ's  sac- 
rifice issued  in  His  eternal  exaltation,  after  he  had  perfected 
the  new  Covenant  in  which  constant  sacrifices  are  no  longer 
needful,  because  by  the  one  sacrifice  is  granted  the  Forgive- 
ness of  Sin  (11 — 18). 

Such,  in  barest  outline,  is  a  sketch  of  the  great  argu- 
ment of  the  Epistle,  and  we  can  see  at  once  how  powerfully 
it  must  have  appealed  to  the  intellect  and  conscience  of  an 
enquiring  Jew.  The  sweeping  proofs  which  St.  Paul  had 
furnished  of  the  nullity  of  the  Law  under  the  new  Christian 
dispensation,  and  of  the  secondary,  parenthetic  position 
which  it  had  always  occupied  in  the  designs  of  God,  might 
sway  the  reason  of  a  Hebrew  reader,  but  they  tended  to 
shock  his  most  cherished  prejudices.  He  would  hail  an  ar- 
gument which  did  not  involve  so  apparently  absolute  a  dis- 
paragement of  the  system  under  which  he  had  been  brought 
up.  For,  in  this  new  method  of  Christian  argument,  even 
Avhile  he  enjoyed  the  glorv^  of  the  substance  he  was  per- 
mitted to  admire  the  beauty  of  the  shadow  ;  he  could  joy- 
fully see  that  even  in  the  passing  type  there  had  always  been 
a  prophecy  of  the  eternal  antitype. 

Let  us  now  look  at  this  great  section  in  closer  detail, 
and  with  an  effort  to  understand  not  only  the  general  bear- 
ing of  the  Epistle,  but  its  separate  paragraphs  ;  and  let 
us  try  in  passing  to  remove  any  difficulties  which  may 
arise  from  the  expression  or  the  arguments  which  the 
writer  adopts. 

Having  spoken  of  the  boldnq^s  with  which  we  may  ap- 
proach the  Throne  of  Grace,  because  of  the  High  Priesthood 
of  Christ,  he  gives  the  two  conditions  of  Priesthood,  namely, 
(i.)  a  power  to  sympathise,  and  (ii.)  a  special  call. 

(i.)   "  For  every  High  Priest,  being  taken  »  from  among  men,  is  appointed 
on  behalf  of  men  in  things  relating  to  God  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sac- 

»  Aafi/Sou'd/news,  "  being  (as  he  is)  chosen." 


-40  Till-:   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

rificr<t  on  hehalf  of  sins."  being  able  to  deal  compassionately  ^  with  the  ignorant 

'   "  since  he  himself  also  is  encompassed  with  moral  weakness  ;  and 

lis  very  wealvness*  he  is  bound,  as  for  the  people  so  also  for  him- 

1  ■•  And  no  one  takes  this  honourable  office  for  hjmself,  but  on  being 
called  bv  God  a^  even  as  Aaron  was.«  So  even  tlie  Christ '  glorified  noUIrmsel/ 
to  U-  mide  a  high  priest,  but  He  [glorified  HimJ  who  said  to  Him.  Ihou  art 
r.ySou-  to-day  have  I  begotten  thee.*^  As  also  in  another  place  He  saith, 
i  hou  art  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  ;  »— Who,  in  the  days 
of  his  flesh  '^  having  offered  up  supplications  and  entreaties  to  Him  who  was 
able  to  save  him  out  of  death,  with  strong  crying  and  tears.'i  and  having  been 
heard  because  of  his  reverential  avve.i-  Son  though  He  was.  learnt  his  obedience 


'  This  may  be  one  of  the  writer's  sonorous  amplifications,  for  no  distinction  can  here  be 
made  between  Siipa  and  Ovaiaq.  In  accurate  Greek  they  diftcr,  and  the  latter  meajis  "slam 
U-asts;"  but  in  the  LXX.  they  are  used  indiscriminately  (irapa  6e  rrj  ypa<i>^  a5ia</)6pws 
Ktlmai,  Theophvlact).  The  writer  may,  however,  have  been  thinking  of  the  mcense  and 
meat-offerings  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  when  he  says  Supa,  or  of  free-will  offerings. 

2  vrip.  I.e.,  to  make  atonement  for  (ii.  17). 

'  I'roperly,  "  to  show  moderate  emotion."  MerpiOTra^jj?  was  the  word  used  by  the  Peri- 
patetics, and  was  invented  by  Aristotle  (Diog.  Laot.  v.  31)  to  express  the  right  state  of  mind, 
as  against  the  Stoics,  who  demanded  of  their  "sage"  a  complete  suppression  of  emotion 
(ojratfijs).  The  word  is  used  both  by  Philo  and  Josephus  of  moderating  passion.  Here  the 
context  shows  that  it  means  "reasonable  compassion"  {jx.^TpiottaQr\%  .  .  .  avyyiyrwo'icwj' 
en'KtKbit,   Hesych.). 

*  fit'  avTTiv  (X,  A,  B,  C,  D). 

5  .See  I>ev.  iv.  3  ;  ix.  7,  etc.  The  first  confession  of  the  High  Priest  on  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment xTas— "  O  do  Thou  expiate  the  misdeeds,  the  crimes,  and  the  sins  wherewith  1  have  done 
evil  and  have  sinned  before  Thee,  I  and  my  house." 

«  Kx.  xxviii.  I  ;  Num.  xvi.-xviii.:  "God  Himself  judged  Aaron  worthy  of  this  honour" 
(Jos.  Antt.  iii.  8.  §  i  ;  and  contrast  Num.  xvi. :  2  Chron.  xxvi.  16-21).  See  Kammidbar 
Rabba,  §  18  (in  Schbttgen),  where  Moses  brings  this  fact  as  a  reproach  against  Korah.  The 
Hi  'h-priests  of  the  day,  when  this  Episde  was  written,  were  alien  Sadducees  ttot  of  high- 
priesdy  lineage,  who  bought  and  sold,  and  tran.sferred  from  one  to  the  other,  and  generally 
degraded  the  office,  being  originally  mere  nominees  of  Herod.  They  belonged  "  to  certain 
obscure  persons  who  were  only  o'i priestly  origin."  not  descendants  of  Aaron  {]q%.  A?ttt.  xx. 
10,  §  5).  For  their  ch.aracteristics  see  the  Talmudic  quotations  in  my  Life  0/  Christ,  n.  330, 
342,  and  infra,  p.  361,  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  writer  means  to  hint  at  this  stale 
of  things.  As  an  Alexandrian,  living  in  Hellenistic  communities,  it  would  not  be  brought 
prominently  under  the  notice  of  ApoUos,  especially  as  these  13oethusim,  etc.,  had  now  held 
the  ofTice  for  more  than  half  a  century. 

'  The  true  "  anointed  Priest." 

8  The  Sonship,  in  the  writer's  argument,  involves  the  proof  of  His  Divine  call  to  the  Priest- 
hood. 

"  "  A  priest  upon  his  throne"  (Zech.  vi.  12) ;  Kara  rafiv,  al-dibhratkt,  after  the  office,  or 
pkice  (Ps.  ex.  4).  The  Jews  said  that  the  "two  anointed  ones"  ("  sons  of  oil")  in  Zech^  iv. 
14  are  Aaron  and  Messiah,  and  argued  from  Ps.  ex.  4  that  Messiah  was  the  dearer  to  God. 
They  always  arcoimted  the  Psalm  to  be  Messianic,  and  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  began, 
"  J'he  Lord  said  to  His  Word." 

'*  aapxbc  here  means  His  "  Humanity." 

' '  Not  mentioned  in  the  ( lospels  in  the  Agony  at  Gethsemane,  but  absolutely  implied. 

"  ciaoxovvdeU  awb  7^5  euAa^ei'a?.     'Atto  may  certainly  mean  "  foji"  "because  of,"  as  in 

I  k.  xix.  3  :  oil*  ri^vva.ro  atto  rov  bx^ov  ;  xxiv.  41,  ani.a-TOvi>Tu>i>  anh  t^5  x«P«5-     Comp.  John 

VI.  6:  Acts  xii.  14  :  xxii.  11   {ovk  eve^XiTTov  arro  T%  Wfrj?),  etc.  ;    EvAd/3eta  (which  in  the 

N.  T.  o<curs  only  at  xii.  28)  is  "reverent  fear,"  as  Opposed  to  terror  and  cowardice.     Zeno 

defined  it  as  '"  reasonable  shrinking"  (ei^AoYOs  e/c^cAicrts)  and  as  being  the  opposite  of  fear,  and 

&.TVS  that  the  wise  man  might  evAa^ciaOai  but  never  ^o^eiaOat.     I^emosthenes  contrasts  the 

ci'Anjfjc  with  the  5<iAo?.     'Jhe  K.  \'.  is  therefore  correct,  and  the  meaning  of  this  interesting 

is  (|uite  clear.     It  is  a  bulwark  against  the  heresies  v  hich  never  will  see  or  allow  the 

:  lumnuity  of  Christ,  as  well  as  His  true  Disunity,    The  attempts  to  avoid  this  mean- 

ii'l.iing  it  "  w.as  heard  /y  J/im  nvh^m  He  feared"  (comp.  Gen.  xxxi.  42),  or  "  was 

i  '  delivered)   from  that  which  He  feared,"  are  merely  due  to  theological  bias. 

I  r;s  are  absolutely  untenable.     The  rendering  of  the  E.  V.  is  that  oi  all  the 

<  >  s,  and  the  meaning  of  euAdjScia  excludes  every  other  (see  Trench,  New  Test. 

viionyius.  ^  x.).     'ihe  t\.aaxovaBt\<;  may  refer  to  the  Angel  who  strengthened  Him  in  con- 

K'  (jucncc  of  His  Prayer  (Lk,  xxii.  43),  or  to  His  absolute  triumph  over  death  and  Hades. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  241 

from  the  things  which  He  suffered,'  and,  after  being  perfected,'^  became  to  all 
those  that  obey  Him  the  cause  of  eternal  salvation,  saluted  by  God  a  high  priest 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  '^  (v.  4 — 10). 

"  Now,  respecting  Melchizedek,  what  we  have  to  say  is  long,  and  is  difficult 
to  explain  to  you,  since  ye  have  become  dull  in  your  hearing.''  For,  indeed, 
enough  ye  ought  to  be  teachers  as  far  as  i/me  is  concerned,''  ye  again  have  need 
that  some  one  teach  you  the  rudiments"  of  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God, 
and  ye  hav^  sunk  to  the  position  of  those  who  need  milk  and  not  solid  fuod.^ 
For  every  one  who  feeds  on  milk  is  inexperienced  in  the  word  of  righteousness," 
for  he  is  an  infant.  But  solid  food  pertains  to  the  fullgrown — to  those  who  by 
virtue  of  their  habit  have  their  organs  of  sense  trained  to  discrimination  of  good 
and  evil »  (v.  11 — 14). 

"Leaving,  then,  the  earliest  principles  of  Christian  teaching,'"  let  us  be 
borne  along  towards  full  growth,  not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance 
from  dead  works,"  and  of  faith  towards  God,  of  the  doctrine  of  ablutions  ^-  and 
laying  on  of  hands, '=*  and  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  seonian  judgment. '^ 
And  this  let  us  do  if  God  permit.  For  as  to  those  who  have  been  once  for  all 
enlightened,'^  and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,'«  and  become  partakers  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  have  tasted  the  excellence  of  the  word  of  God, '^  and  the 


1  "Son,"  z'.e.,  not  "«  Son"  (for  then  there  would  have  been  no  stress  on  His  "learning 
obedience"),  but  "  i/ie  Son  of  God."  ena9fv  .  .  .  enaOev,  one  of  the  commonest  of  ancient 
paronomasias  (tferod.  i.  207;  /I^sch.  A^^.  170;  and  often  in  Philo).  Tlicodoret  called  this 
expression  hyperbolical,  and  Chrysostom  seems  surprised  by  it  ;  and  Theophylact  goes  so  far 
as  to  call  it  unreasonable.  But  "  the  things  that  He  suffered  "  have  a  reference  far  wider  than 
to  the  Agony.  Still  there  is  no  doubt  that  passages  like  these  increased  the  hesitancy  in  re- 
ceiving the  Epistle.  2  "Perfected"  in  His  fficdia iorial  rc\a.non,  ii.  10. 

3  Comp.  Philo,  0/>^.  i.  653  ;  ev  <^  (Koaixw)  /cat  Ap^tepei;?  o  Trpwroyot'os  avTov  Adyo?. 

4  'J'his  passage  also  was  perhaps  known  to  Justin  Martyr  [Dial.  c.  Trypk.  33). 

^  The  expression  shows  that  the  Epistle  was  written  somewhat  late — to  tliuse  who  had 
long  been  converts.  ^  Gal.  iv.  3.  ''  i  Cor.  iii.  i,  2. 

^  Apparently  a  general  phrase  for  the  Gospel.  The  word  Tsedakah  in  Hebrew  has  a 
wider  range  of  meaning  than  "  Righteousness." 

^  Clearly  not  •'right  and  wrong;  "  but  here  referring  to  doctrines — the  power  to  " discrim- 
inate the  transcendent "  (Rom.  ii.  18),  to  distinguish  between  excellence  and  inferiority  in  mat- 
ter of  truth.     The  phrase  is  a  Hebrew  one,  Vuda  tohk  Tci-rA  (Gen.  ii.  17,  etc.). 

"*  Leaving  such  principles — not,  of  course,  in  the  sense  of  neglecting  or  forgetting  them, 
but  in  the  sense  of  making  an  advance  beyond  them. 

"  Repentance  was  xSxa.  first  and  earliest  lesson  of  the  Gospel  (Mk.  i.  15).  Dead  works — 
works  of  the  Law  (ix.  14  :  Rom.  ix.  32),  which  have  no  inherent  life  in  them  {Article  XIII.). 

'2  Jewish  alilutions  (ix.  10)  the  Jewish  converts  to  Christianity  might  still  retain  and  explain 
in  a  more  spiritual  sense.     Baptismos  is  never  used  for  Christian  Baptism  [bnptisma). 

'3  For  healing  (Mk.  xvi.  18,  etc.),  for  ordination  (Acts  vi.  6,  etc.),  for  confirmation  (.\cts 
viii.  17,  etc.). 

'*  The  aiuii'ios  expresses  the  quality  of  the  KpilyLO.  as  referring  to  the  future  world.  Un- 
doubtedly this  sentence  is  surprising.  The  reAeiorrj?  towards  which  we  are  to  be  carried  along 
is  evidently  connected  in  the  writer's  mind  with  the  doctrine  of.Christ's  High  Priesthood,  as 
typified  by  that  of  Melchizedek.  It  seems  strange  that  he  should  rank  thi.s  Gnosis  as  so  great 
an  advance  beyond  the  doctrines  of  faith,  repentance,  and  the  resurrection,  whiph  both  St. 
Paul  and  we  regard  as  being  of  such  primary  importance.  See,  however,  Rlehm,  Lehrbeqrijf 
der  Hebrderbriefs,  783,  f  9.  The  writer  means,  '"  These  truths  you  know,  or  ought  to  know, 
thoroughly  by  this  time;  but  your  special  danger  is  apostasy  to  Judaic  formalism,  and  yon 
would  be  beyond  the  reach  of  this  peril  if  you  were  capable  of  grasping  the  truths  which  I  shall 
now  set  forth."  He  docs  not  disparage  these  elementary  tr«hs,  though  they  were  all  common 
to  Christianity  with  the  older  Co-i'cnant.  .        .      ,    .  •       n 

'5  oiraf  is  a  favourite  word  of  the  writer,  occurring  more  frequently  in  this  Epistle  than  m  all 
the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  Photisinos  became  (probably  in  consequence  of  this  passage) 
the  regular  phrase  for  baptism  (Just.  Mart.  Ap.  i.  62  ;  Chrysostom,  etc.).  Here  it  has  the 
more  general  sense.  ^ 

'8  It  is  impossible  to  be  certain  as  to  the  definite  meaning  of  this  expression.  It  probably 
means  "remission"  or  "regeneration."  Itis  not  easy  in  this  passage  to  see  a  clear  disunction 
between  ■yevo-acr^at  with  the  genitive  (Sojpe'a?)  and  the  accusative  {prm-a). 

i''  This  phrase  is  also  indefinite,  but  from  a  parallel  passage  of  Pliilo  {De  pro/ug.  vi.  25)  it 
probably  means  the  Divine  teaching  of  the  Gospel.  'J'he  writer  may  hf^re  have  usivl  the  accu- 
sative with  veva-ao-eat  because  the  genitive  would  have  caused  a  confu:>ioa  with  (s>toy.  On  the 
gifts  in  general  conip.  ii.  3,  4. 

16 


242  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

powers  of  the  Future  Age,*  and  who  have  fallen  away '— it  is  impossible  again 
to  renew  them  to  repentance,  while  they  are  crucifying  to  themselves  the  Son 
of  God  afresh,  and  putting  Him  to  open  shame.  For  land  which  has  drunk  the 
rain  which  often  cometh  upon  it,  and  which  is  producing  herbage  suitable  for 
those  for  whose  sake  it  is  also  being  tilled,  partakes  of  blessing  from  God  ;  but 
that  which  produces  thorns  and  thistles  is  rejected,  and  near  a  curse,  the  end 
of  which  is  for  burning.^ 

"  Hut,  beloved,  we  are  convinced  of  the  better  alternative  aboflt  you,^  and 
things  akin  to  salvation,^  even  though  we  do  thus  speak.  For  God  is  not  unjust 
to  torgel  in  a  moment"  your  work  and  love  which  ye  showed  towards  His  name 
in  having  ministered  to  the  saints,  and  yet  ministering.^  But  we  long  for  each 
of  you  to  show  tiie  same  earnestness  with  the  view  to  the  full  assurance  of  your 
ho{)e  until  the  end,*"  that  ye  may  prove  yourselves  not  sluggish, «  but  imitators 
of  those  who  by  faith  and  patient  waiting  inherit  the  promises.  [And  I  say 
who  inherit  the  promises]  for  God,  when  He  promised  to  Abraham,  since  He 
could  not  swear  by  any  greater,  swore  by  Himself,'"  saying.  Verily, n  blessing  I 
will  bless  thee,  and  multiplying  1  will  multiply  thee.  And  so,  by  waiting 
patiently,  he  obtained  the  promises.  For  men  indeed  swear  by  the  greater, 
and  to  them  the  oath  is  an  end  of  all  contradiction  for  confirmation.''^  On  which 
principle, '=•  God  wishing  to  show  more  abundantly'*  to  the  heirs  of  the  promise 
the  immutability  of  His  purpose,  intervened  with  an  oath '^  that  by  means  of 
two  immutable  things,'"'  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie,'^  we  may  have  a 
strong  encouragement  who  fled  for  refuge  to  grasp  the  hope  set  before  us.'« 
Which  we  have  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul,'**  secure  and  firm,  and  passing  to  the 

>  Compare  with  this  evpression  Philo,  De  proem,  et  />oen.  (0pp.  i.  428,  ed.  Mangey). 
"  This  is  he  who  has  quaffed  much  pure  wine  of  God's  benevolent  power,  and  bnnguetedw^ow 
sacred  words  and  doctrines."  The  "powers  of  the  future  aeon"  (i.e.^  of  the  Olain  habba) 
may  be  foretastes  of  its  glory,  or,  as  Chrysostom  says,  '*  the  earnest  of  the  spirit." 

'•'  Comp.  ii.  I  ;  iii.  12  ;  x.  26,  29. 

'  vi.  1-8.  See  i\fra.  These  strong  warnings  against  apostasy  (comp.  x.  26-31  ;  xii.  15- 
17)  are  a  special  characteristic  of  this  Epistle.  Their  general  meaning  is,  that  for  deUberate 
and  defiant  apostasy  there  is  no  remedy  provided.  They  are  involved  in  the  strong  expres- 
sion of  .St.  Paul,  "  God  is  not  mocked"  (0ebs  ov  fxvKTT/pt^eTat,  Gal.  vi.  7).  and  may  be  com- 
pared with  Matt.  xii.  31,  32,  43-45  ;  1  John  v.  16.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  what  a' rare  inso- 
lence .'.nd  wretchlessness  of  sin  must  be  involved  in  such  expressions  as  "  trampling  down  the 
Son  of  God  "  and  "  insulting  the  spirit  of  grace." 

*  ra  Kfifia-aova.  6  'i'he  opposite  to  eyyv^  Kar6.pa<:  in  ver.  8. 

*  «iraa»«(r0ai— forget  in  a  single  acU  "  Labour  "  {koitov)  is  omitted  in  the  best  MSS„  and 
IS  prob.ibly  added  from  i  Thess.  1.  3. 

">  For  the  phrase  sec  Rom.  xv.  25.  The  "saints"  at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  10  ;  i  Cor.  xvi.  i) 
were  too  poor  to  uunisicr  to  others,  and  this  is  one  indication  that  the  letter  was  not  sent  to 
tliem. 

*  To  show  the  same  earnestness  in  advancing  to  perfection  as  they  had  shown  in  minister- 
mg  lo  ihi-  vaint*. 

'  ' ' ""*  '  fTic  as  "sluggish"  (cwdpoi)  in  Christian  progress  as  ye  hn7>e  be- 
come .•  [ver.  11). 

...    '"  '  "n  find  an  almost  unmistakable  reference  to  Philo,  7?^  Z^^jf.y^//^-^^. 

in.  73  .  I,  ,v,.,i;  «.•.,  <c„,iirmcd  His  promise  even  by  an  oath  .  .  .  for  thou  seest  that  God 
N*c:ircth  not  by  another— for  nothing  is  superior  to  Himself— but  by  Himself,  Who  is  the  best 

"  The  MSS.  vary  between  «I  m*?.  tl  ti^v.  ?,  111171':  but  the  three  readings  mean  much  the 
»amc.     ft  Ml),  a  literal  rcnclcrmg  of  the  Hebrew  ////  lo,  may  have  led  to  the  variations. 

"  Comp.  Philo,  (,ym>d  a  Ih-o^ittantur  somnia  {Opp.  i.  622),  and  there  are  very  similar 

Pa»'^'»i' "•    "■••!fi'UnoU>/>p.\\.^()).  'S^fcS. 

\*  \  '  intly"  than  if  He  had  not  sworn. 

''  '  intcrmcdiiUc  Inrtwecn  Himself  and  Abraham.     In  IJemchoth,  f.  32.  n. 

'^'""  ••  Hadst  Ihou  sworn  by  Heaven  and  Karth  I  should  have  said  T/t>'y  will 

v>  may  Thy  oath  ;  but  as  Thou  hast  sworn  by  Thy  great  name,  that  oath 

■.rd  and  His  oath  (Gen.  xxii.  17).     ThcTargums  have  not  "By  Myself," 
live  I  sworn." 

iilH.ssiblc  with  f;od,  exct-pf  to  lie"'  (Clem.  Rom.  27). 
It  "  the  object  of  our  Hope  set  before  us  a  prize." 
-      »•»  very  Mfly  time*  the  Anchor  was  the  emblem  of  Hope.     vokK^v  paytiawv  €\mS,^v, 


Uu  ' 

1 

11 

IK 

A 

THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  243 

region  behind  the  veil,'  where  a  forerunner  on  our  behalf  entered — Jesus — 
having  become  a  High  Priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedck"  (vi. 
9-20.) 

The  earlier  sections  of  this  passage  are  easy  to  under- 
stand. We  see  at  once  that^  High  Priest  who  was  not  of 
like  feelings  with  ourselves — one  who  had  no  capacity  for 
suffering,  and  therefore  no  power  of  sympathy — would  be  a 
most  imperfect  representative  of  his  fellow-men,  on  whose 
behalf  he  has  to  stand  in  the  presence  of  God.  Nor  is  it 
difficult  to  understand  the  importance  which  the  writer 
attaches  to  a  Divine  calling  to  the  Priesthood.  Of  the 
Divine  calling  of  Christ  he  furnishes  a  twofold  proof, — the 
one,  that  it  was  involved  in  the  eternal  Sonship,  which  he 
illustrates  by  Psalm  ii.  7  ;  and  the  other,  that  He  is 
addressed  as  a  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  in 
Psalm  ex.  4.  As  both  Psalms  were  fully  acknowledged  to 
be  Messianic,  the  cogency  of  these  references  would  not  be 
disputed.  He  adds  a  few  words  of  profound  interest  to 
show  that  Christ's  eternal  Priesthood  was  perfected  first  by 
the  sufferings  which  tie  endured  for  our  sakes,  and  then  by 
His  glorification.  He  regards  the  w^hole  life  of  Christ  as 
a  part  of  the  work  wherein  God  glorified  Him  to  be  an 
Eternal  Priest.  The  main  work  of  that  Priesthood  was 
infinite  self-sacrifice  ;  for  the  sake  of  which,  in  the  days  of 
His  flesh,  He  not  only  emptied  Himself  of  His  glory,  but 
laid  aside  for  a  time  every  claim  as  the  co-eternal  and  co- 
equal Son,'"  in  order  to  become  a  man  with  men  ;  to 
dwell  in  man's  house  of  clay  ;  to  have  a  human  soul  ;  to 
entreat  and  supplicate  and  cry  to  tlis  Heavenly  Father 
with  tears  both  in  Gethsemane  and  on  the  Cross.  And  He 
was  heard,  because  of  the  glory  of  the  infinite  self-abnega- 
tion involved  in  this  humble  iiwe.  In  this  passage,  as  else- 
where, the  writer  furnishes  the  most  inestimable  proof  that 
Christ's  High  Priesthood  has  the  qualification  derived 
from  perfect  human  sympathy.  He  also  gi\es  us  a  strong- 
hold of  assurance  to  resist  that  Apollinarian  heresy  which, 
with  irreverent  reverence,  denies  the  true  humanity  of 
Christ,  and  has  often  been  as  dangerous  to  the  Church  as 
Arianism  itself.  Neither  that  heresy,  nor  the  Monothelite 
heresy,  which  denies  to  our  Lord  a  human  will,  can  find  a 

1  "  Nostrani  ancoram  mittimus  ad  interiora  cocli,  sicut  ancora  fcrrca  mittitiir  ad  inferiora 
maris."  "  Christ  hath  extended  to  us  a  Hope  from  Heaven,  as  a  rope  let  down  from  the 
throne  of  God,  and  again  reaching  from  us  to  the  inmost  Heaven  and  the  seat  of  (Jod  "  (Faber 
Stapulensis).     "The  veil,"  Ex.  xxvi.  31-35. 

-  Phil.  ii.  6  :   "  He  counted  not  equality  with  God  a  thing  at  which  to  grasp." 


244  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

moment's  admission  so  long  as  this  passage  and  the  early 
chapters  of  St.  Luke  retain  their  places  in  Holy  Writ. 
The  fact  that  some  of  the  Fathers  were  startled  by  this 
passai^e  is  an  additional  indication  of  its  importance  to  the 
Ciirisdan  Church.  Thcodorcfe  ventures  to  say  that  since 
Clirist  manifested  His  obedience  not  after,  but  lycfore,  His 
sufTcring,  the  expression  that  "  He  learned  obedience  by 
the  tilings  which  He  suffered  "  is  a  hyperbolical  expression.' 
The(jphylact  goes  even  farther,  and  says  that  Paul  (for  he 
traditionally  accepts  the  Pauline  authorship),  "for  the  bene- 
fit of  his  hearers,  used  such  accommodation  as  obviously 
to  say  some  unreasonable  things."'  Had  these  Fathers 
sufficiently  borne  in  mind  that  Christ  was  '*  perfectly  man  " 
as  well  as  "truly  God  "  they  would  not  have  used  so  free  a 
style  of  criticism.  And  it  might  have  been  better  for  the 
Church  if  tliey  had  been  less  ready  to  claim  a  right  to  use 
this  "accommodation"  themselves,  and  less  ready  to  attrib- 
ute it  to  the  Apostles.^ 

The  digression  that  follows  does  not  in  the  least  resemble 
what  has  been  called  St.  Paul's  habit  of  "  going  off  at  a 
word."  This  waiter  does  not  go  off  at  a  word  at  all.  Noth- 
ing less  resembles  being  "  hurried  aside  by  the  violence  of 
his  thoughts."  His  method  is  precisely  the  opposite  of 
this.  Instead  of  yielding  to  the  impulse  of  a  strong 
emotion,  as  St.  Paul  does,  he  prepares  himself  in  the  most 
leisurely  and  deliberate  manner  for  an  argument  of  con- 
summate skilfulness  and  power.  That  argument  was 
wholly  original  in  its  development,  and  he  therefore  en- 
deavours to  stimulate  the  spiritual  dulness  of  his  readers. 
By  a  powerful  mixture  of  reproach,  \varning,  and  encour- 
agement he  arouses  them  to  the  moral  and  intellectual 
effort  without  which  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  grasp  new 
truth. 

He  is  about  to  give  them  not  the  milk  which  w^as  neces- 
sary for  infants — for  beginners  in  Christ's  teaching* — but 
solid  food,  such  as  was  only  fitted  for  mature  understand- 
ings.' In  their  present  condition — long  as  was  the  time 
since  their  conversion — they  were  incapable  of  receiving  it; 


'  'ITjc  spcci.nl  objection  only  arose  from  Thcodorct's  failure  to  recognise  that  the  word 
"  suffered  "  a^jplics  not  only  to  the  Agony  in  Gcthscmane  and  on  the  Cross,  but  to  the  whole 
life  of  the  Saviour.  2  Scc  supra,  p.  240,  note. 

•  Sec  note  on  **  Accommodation  "  in  my  Mercy  and  Judf^inrnt,  p.  296. 

♦The  young  Rabbinic  neophytes  used  to  be  cMcA  th'inoiu'it/i  hlp^aTl).  "sucklings." 
Comp.  Philo,  Pe  Ajftic,  *Eir«l  hi.  nijnion  t>.iy  earl  yoiAo  Tpo(^ij,  k.t.\. 

'  Comp.  I  Cor.  ui.  1,  a. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  245 

but  he  encourages  tliem  to  liope  that  they  would  become 
capable,  if  they  were  sincere  and  earnest  in  their  desire  for 
Christian  progress.  He  bids  them,  therefore,  dismiss  for 
the  present  the  subjects  which  had  engaged  their  attention 
when  tliey  were  catecliumens.  In  those  days  they  had  been 
occupied  Ayith  the  initial  steps  of  religious  knowledge.  It 
^yas  not  his  present  purpose — it  ought  to  be  quite  unneces- 
sary now — to  remind  them  once  more  of  such  rudimentary 
truth  as  the  difiference  between  faith  and  works  ;  the  dis- 
tinction between  Jewish  ablutions  and  Christian  Baptism  ; 
the  meaning  of  imposition  of  hands  ;  the  truths  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  and  the  sentence  of  the  world  to 
come.  They  could  not  need  such  teachings  as  this — unless, 
indeed,  they  were  in  danger  of  apostasy.  Of  the  peril  of 
such  apostasy  he  giyes  them  a  most  solemn  warning. 

And  here,  at  once,  we  find  ourselyes  launched  on  a  sea 
of  controyersy  wdiich  has  been  age  after  age  renewed.    The 
originality  of   the  writer's  mind  constantly  shows  itself   in 
expressions    and    modes  of    thought    which    occur    in    him. 
alone. 

I.  First  of  all  the  word  "  enlightened  "  acquired  at  a 
yery  early  age  the  technical  sense  of  "baptised,"  so  that 
"  enlightenment"  {photismosY  w^as  a  recognised  synonym  of 
baptism,  though  it  referred  directly  not  to  the  outward  sign, 
but  to  the  thing  signified.  Hence  the  sterner  schismatics 
of  the  early  Church  deduced  from  this  passage  the  duty  of 
finally  excluding  the  w^eak  from  church  communion  by 
refusing  absolution  to  those  wdio  once  had  lapsed  into  apos- 
tasy or  flagrant  sin.'  This  was  equiyalent  to  the  assertion 
that  "all  sm  willingly  committed  after  baptism  is  unpardon- 
able." The  fact  that  the  use  of  "enlightenment"  for 
"baptism"  did  not  exist  before  this  passage  was  written, 
but  is  deriyed  from  it,  is  at  once  sufficient  to  set  aside  the 
cogency  of  their  inference,  which  was,  it  is  needless  to  add, 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  practice  and  teaching  of  Christ 
and  His  Apostles,  and  is  justly  condemned  by  our  Church 
in  her  i6th  Article. 

>  The  ff>mTi^e<reai.  is  equivalent  to  the  "  receiving  full  knowleJge  of  the  tnith  "  in  x.  26. 
The  word  also  occurs  in  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  "  the  illumination  of  the  Gospel  of  the  glory  of  the  Christ. 
In  the  T.XX.  4)a)Ti^eii'  is  "  to  teach  "  (Judg.  xiii.  8  ;  2  Kings  xii  2).     Sunilarly  in  the  Fathers 
civaKaii'L^fii'  is  "  to  rcbaptise."  ,       -   a     t  ■ 

-  See  lert.  Dc />uiiicit.  20  :  Kpiphan.  Haer.  li.v.,  /nero  to  Aovrpof  mtj^'ti  eAeeio-ffat  fiui-ao-.  at 
Tov  jrapaTreTTTWKroTa  :  Euscb.  //.  K.  vi.  43  :  Ambrose.  De  /Wnit.  ii.  2.  etc  ;  Pearson,  Opi  tUf 
Crcfd,  Art.  x.:  and  the  Hp.  of  Winchester  on  Art.  xvi.  'Ihis  attempt  to  nisist  upon  a  tran- 
scendental perfection  arose  from  the  conviction,  held  by  Montanists,  though  n-^t  by  them  cxclii- 
sively.  that  the  end  was  imminent.  The  rule  of  the  Novatians  was  m»I  fie'x**^^*^  'O"*  '^'"W;- 
Koras  eis  ra  /liuo-T^pia  (Socrates,  //.  K.  iv.  28). 


246  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

2.  Tliis  hard  dogma  was  also  rightly  rejected  by  the 
Fathers,  who,  following  the  example  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles,'  never  closed^the  door  of  repentance  even  to  the 
most  Hairnint  sinners.  From  this  passage,  however,  they 
deduced  the  unlawfulness  of  administering  a  second  time 
the  rite  of  Baptism— a  right  conclusion  indeed,  but  one  which 
rests  on  other  grounds  than  those  which  this  passage  affords. 

3.  Hut  while  these  ancient  controversies  are  practically 
set  at  rest,  we  have  not  yet  heard  the  last  of  that  which 
raged  between  Calvinists  and  Arminians  on  the  "  indefec- 
tibility  of  grace." 

a.  Both  sides  tampered  with  the  plain  meaning  of  the 
words.  The  expression  'Svhen  they  have  once  fallen  away  " 
was  fatal  to  the  theories  of  the  Calvinists,  who  held  that  those 
who  were  regenerate  were  also  elect,  and  could  never  fall 
iiic'iiY.'  It  has  been  often  supposed  that  the  rendering  of 
the  English  Version,  "//"  they  shall  fall  away,"  is  an  attempt 
to  get  rid  of  this  inference.  That  it  is  a  mistranslation  of 
•the  most  obvious  kind  is  undeniable,  since  the  Greek  parti- 
ciple is  in  the  J>asl  tense  ;  but,  if  the  history  of  it  be  traced 
through  various  versions  of  the  Bible,  it  seems  not  to  have 
been  due  to  a  Calvinistic  bias,  but  to  be  a  perfectly  honest 
mistake,  derived  from  other  sources.  Calvin  himself  was  far 
too  great  a  scholar  to  defend  his  view  by  such  a  rendering. 
He  adopted  the  different  method  of  attempting  to  weaken 
the  force  of  the  previous  expressions,  and  to  argue  that 
when  tlie  writer  spoke  of  those  "  who  tasted  of  the  heavenly 
gift,  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  tasted 
the  good  word  of  God  and  the  powers  of  the  future  world," 
he  did  nt.^t  mean  ''  true  and  sincere  believers,"  but  only  "  the 
reprobates  who  had  but  tasted,  as  it  ivere,  with  their  outer  lips 
the  grace  of  God,  and  been  irradiated  by  some  sparks  of 
His  Light."  He  tried,  in  fact,  to  exaggerate  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  word  *' taste,"  so  as  to  imply  that  it  meant 
notliing  more  than  an  i/iklirii^  oi  Christian  truth.  It  will  be 
seen  at  once  that  such  an  argument  is  not  to  explain  Scrip- 
ture, but  to  explain  it  away.  Extravagant  literalism  has  been 
<ven  more  fatal  to  exegesis  than  extravagant  allegorising. 

/i.  But  the  Calvinists  had  no  monopoly  in  thedistortion 


'  '-•  <  iir.  ii.  7,  10:  vii.  19. 

•  r  will  be  rcmiiulcrl  of  what  was  said  by  the  dyin?  Cromwell.     He  asked  his 

>fion  us  to  "  the  indcfertibility  of  Rrace."     *'  Was  it  possible  for  jiny  one  who 

.  Ill  .1  sutc  of  grace  to  fall  away  from  it?  "     When  his  chaplain  answered  in  the 

i.cjiai.vc  Lro:nwcII  replied  that  in  that  case  he  was  happy,  for  he  felt  sure  that  once  he  had 

uccn  in  a  ttatc  of  grace. 


TH^  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  24/ 

of  the  plain  meaning  of  tlic  sacred  words.  Tliat  error  be- 
longs, alas  !  to  all  sects  and  all  religious  partisans  alike. 
Arminians,  who  were  unwilling  to  admit  that  in  this  life  the 
door  of  repentance  and  of  hope  could  ever  be  closed  to  any 
sinner,  stumbled  at  the  word  ^'  impossible,"  and  actually 
rendered  it  (as  in  some  ancient  Latin  manuscripts)  by  the 
word  difficile.,  "difficult."  The  doctrine  on  behalf  of  which  they 
thus  twisted  words  to  suit  their  own  meaning  may,  indeed, 
be  amply  supported,  but  it  must  not  be  supported  by  such 
an  untenable  procedure.  "  Impossible  "  has  a  very  different 
meaning  from  "  difficult,"  and  it  is  clear  that  the  writer  lays 
down  quite  distinctly  that,  when  those  who  have  received 
spiritual  illumination  and  shared  in  Divine  gifts  deliberately 
apostatise,  it  is  impossilyle  to  renew  them  to  repentance,  see- 
ing that  they  are — or,  as  the  words  may  perhaps  be  rendered, 
so  long  as  they  are — crucifying  afresh,  to  their  own  ruin,  the 
Son  of  God.  He  does  not  say  that  this  has  occurred  in  the 
case  of  the  Hebrew,  Christians  ;  nay,  he  expresses  his  con- 
viction that  it  has  not.  He  does  not  even  say  that  it  can 
occur.  He  only  says  that,  7v/ien  it  occurs,  and  so  long  as  it 
lasts  renewal  is  impossible.  There  can  be  no  second  "  Second 
Birth." 

4.  On  the  other  hand,  his  words  must  not  be  forced  and 
tortured  into  conclusions  which  do  not  fall  within  the  scope 
either  of  his  language  or  of  his  hypothesis.  All  that  he  has 
here  in  view  is  the  agency  of  men — the  teaching  and 
ministry  of  the  Church  ;  he  is  neither  speaking  nor  thinking 
of  the  omnipotence  of  God.  It  is  impossible  in  the  highest 
degree  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  ; '  but 
what  is  impossible  with  men  is  possible  with  God.'  And, 
indeed,  the  marked  change  of  tenses  in  this  passage  is  not 
without  its  significance.  He  says  that  it  is  impossible  to 
renew  to  repentance  those  who  hai^e  fallen  away,  crucifying 
as  they  are  the  Son  of  God.  The  change  from  the  past  to 
the  present  implies  a  continuous,  as  well  as  an  insolent 
apostasy.  It  implies  the  case  of  those  who  cling  deliberately 
to  their  sins.^  While  this  continues,  how  can  there  be  any 
hope  of  renewal  ?  The  condition  of  such  men,  as  long  as  it 
continues  unchanged,  precludes  all  possibility  of  the  action 

1  Matt.  xix.  26 ;  Mk.  x.  27 ;  Lk.  xviii.  27.  That  the  words  must  Xx.  understood  in  their 
literal  sense,  and  that  nelthr  can  Ki\i.-r\ko<;  mean  'J  rope,"  nor  ''  tlie  eye  of  a  needle"  mean 
"  the  side-gate  of  a  city,"  I  have  shown  in  a  paper  in  the  Expositor  (Vol.  iii.  169). 

2  So  St.  Ambrose  {De  poenit.  ii.  3)  :  "Quae  impossibilia  sunt  apud  hommes.  possibilia 
sunt  apud  Deum,  et  poteus  est  Deus  quando  vult  donare  nobis  pcccata.  ctiam  quae  pulamus 
non  posse  concedi."  ^  e/covcriw?  aikaf>ravQ\nuiv ,  x.  26. 


248  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  j^racc.  It  is  impossible  at  once  "  to  be  pardoned  "  and  to 
retain  the  olTence.  If,  said  the  Jewish  Rabbis,  a  man  has 
merely  touciied  a  creeping  thing,  the  smallest  drop  of  water 
siilTices  for  his  Levitic  purification  ;  but  if  he  keeps  the  un- 
clean thing  purposely  in  his  hand,  an  ocean  of  ablutions  will 
nt)t  make  him  clean.  It  is  impossible  to  save  willing 
ulTcntlers  in  the  sense  in  which  //la/i  may  ''  save  "  his  brother 
(1  Tim.  iv.  i6)  ;  but  nothing  is  impossible  to  God. 

5.  It  will  be  seen,  then,  how^  little  this  passage  lends 
itself  t(j  the  violent  oppositions  of  these  old  controversies. 
Xor,  again,  has  it  much  bearing  on  the  too  curious  specula- 
tions in  which  some  have  indulged  about  the  sin  against  tlie 
Holy  Ghost,  and  the  unpardonable  sin.'  That  there  is  a 
sin  which  will  not  be  forgiven,  either  in  this  or  the  future 
age — that  there  is  "  a  sin  unto  death,"  for  the  forgiveness  of 
which  we  are  not  bidden  to  pray — that  the  last  state  of  a 
backslider  or  an  apostate  may  be  worse  than  the  first" — we 
learn  from  other  passages  of  Scripture.  That  a  daring  and 
vv-illing  apostasy — a  deliberate  return  from  light  to  darkness, 
and  fnjiu  the  power  of  God  to  Satan — must  be  the  most 
l)crilous  (jf  all  conditions,  and  therefore  must  very  nearly 
apjjroach  to  those  awful  sins,  is  clear  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  since  like /'the  doing  despite  to  the  spirit  of  grace" 
(.\.  29)  it  seems  to  close  against  itself  the  very  door  of  salva- 
tion.■*  We  must  neither  turn  the  text  into  "a  rock  of  des- 
pair "  nor  into  ''  a  pillar  of  carnal  security."  If  by  the  ex- 
pression ''on  their  falling  away  "  he  meant  to  describe  every 
fall  into  mortal  sin,  then,  as  Luther  says,  his  words  would 
contradict  "all  the  Gospels,  and  all  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul." 
Hut  he  is  speaking  only  of  predetermined  and  wilful 
ipostasy,  and  irrevocable  Divine  dereliction;*  such  as  is 
described  in  that  passage  of  Isaiah' where  the  Prophet  speaks 
<)(  renegades  passing  through  the  land  hardly  bestead,  and 
hungry,  and  fretting  themselves,  and  looking  upwards  only 
to  curse  their  King  and  their  God,  and  seeing  nothing  but 
■iiinness  and  anguish  when  they  look  downwards.  Beyond 
lis  we  cannot  g(j.     The  various  modern  discussions  which 

>  See  in/man  i  John  v.  16.  2  3  Pd.  ii.  20  ;  Lk.  xi.  26. 

A  writrr  who  was  not  thinking  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  said,  in  touching  on  only 

'■'  7''  [■''-•  <^'-'»sccjuenccs  of  apostasy,  that  "  When  the  Christian  falls  back  out  of  the 

'  ;''*^  Kesurrcction,  even  the  Orpheus  song  is  forbidden  him  ;  not  to  have  known 

I  ,  ,  ^  •'">c''-^s  :  one  may  smg,  unknowing,  as  the  swan  or  Philomela.     F.ut  to  have 

ki.  .Au  u...  uii  away  trom  it.  and  to  declare  that  the  human  wishes  which  are  summed  in  that 

fk^T.     li^  k'njidoiii  come  -arc  vain  !     'J'he  Kates  ordain  that  there  shall  be  no  singing  after 

'it,—   /I*    •"•      •""-"'l'^"'  '■;•"■  and  Foul"  [Mnetceuth  Century.  Aug.  1880). 

:  *""  OcttiiiKcn  and  Dchuscli  refer  to  the  c  isc  of  Spira  (see  Herzog.  Real.  EncyJd.,  s.  v.). 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    IlEUREWS.  249 

liave  risen  out  of  these  mysterious  passages  do  not  seem  to 
have  been  consciously  present  to  tiie  writer's  mind.  He  is 
speaking  to  a  very  different  class  from  those  whom  Christ 
warned  about  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ohost.  He  is  speak- 
ing to  Hebrew  Christians,  and  pointing  out  to  them  witli 
awful  faithfulness  the  fact  that  they  were  becoming  spirit- 
ually stagnant,  and  that  stagnancy  ends  in  corruption.  To 
return  to  their  dead  works  after  the  heavenly  enlightenment 
— to  abandon  the  eternal  substance  for  the  transient  shadow 
— to  go  back  from  the  finished  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  the  beg- 
garly elements  of  the  Law,  was  a  peril  which  they  were 
beginning  to  incur,  but  from  which  he  felt  convinced  that 
they  w^ould  be  saved  in  time.  Nor  could  he  have  chosen  any 
words  better  fitted  than  these  to  arrest  the  degeneracy 
which  he  already  saw  and  deplored. 

A  less  voluminous  controversy  has  arisen  out  of  the 
writer's  comparison  of  the  backsliding,  or  rather  the  apos- 
tate, Christians  to  waste  and  worthless  land. 

a.  The  test  of  sincerity  is  fruitfulness.  The  field  that 
has  drunk  the  rain  from  heaven,  and  bears  thirty,  sixty,  or 
a  hundredfold,  is  a  field  which  God  has  blessed.  But  the 
field  on  which  the  rain  falls  and  the  sun  shines  in  vain,  and 
which  only  brings  forth  weeds  wherewith  the  mower  filleth 
not  his  hand,  nor  he  that  gathereth  the  sheaves  his  bosom, 
has  been  tested  and  found  profitless,  like  the  clay  ground 
between  Succoth  and  Zeredatha.'  Of  such  land  he  says  that 
it  is  "nigh  to  a  curse."  Doubtless  he  has  in  mind  the  older 
curse — w^hich  yet  the  mercy  of  God  mitigated  into  something 
not  far  from  a  blessing — "  Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake. 
Thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee."""  But 
yet  the  form  of  his  expression  surely  shows  how  far  are  his 
thoughts  from  the  awful  dogma  of  final  reprobation.  ''  See," 
says  St.  Chrysostom,  "  how  much  consolation  his  words  in- 
volve !  He  says  '' near  th  curse,'  not  ''a  curse.''  But  he  who 
has  not  yet  fallen  into  a  curse,  but  has  got  near  it,  will  also 
be  able  to  get  afar  from  it.  If  then  we  cut  out  and  burn 
up  the  thorns,  we  shall  be  able  to  enjoy  the  unnumbered 
benefits,  and  to  become  approved,  and  to  share  in  the  bless- 

y8.  Yet  the  end  of  such  waste  soil  is  "for  burning."  Some 
have  thought  that  even  in  this  burning  there  is  implied,  not 
liopeless  destruction,  but  a  method  of  improvement.     Such 


2  Chron.  iv.  17.  '  Gen.  iii.  18. 


;0  THE   KARLV   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY 


a  inctliod  was  well    known  to  Roman  agriculture.     "Often, 
(,>o,"  says  Virgil,  'Miatli  it  been  of  use  to  fire  barren  fields, 

ai    '  ^ 
il 


iiul  to  burn  the  light^stiibble  with  crackling  tlames  ;  whether 
I  be  tiiat  so  the  lands  acquire  hidden  strength  and  fattening 
nurture,  or  that  so  every  distemper  is  baked  out  of  them  by 
fire,  and  the  useless  moisture  sweats  out,  or  that  the  heat 
opens  out  more  paths  and  secret  apertures  through  which 
sap  may  come  to  the  tender  plants."'  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  writer  was  familiar  with  this  agricultural  prac- 
tice, or  its  supposed  utility.  It  is  more  likely  that  he  was 
thinking  of  scorched  and  waste  wildernesses  like  that ''  Burnt 
Phrvgia"  with  which  he  must  have  been  familiar,  or  of  re- 
gions like  the  Solfatara,  or  of  the  smoke  rising  from  the 
fields  of  Sodom,  where  ''the  whole  land  is  brimstone  and 
salt,  and  burning,  that  it  is  not  sowm,  nor  beareth,  nor  any 
green  groweth  therein."^  He  is  not  describing  the  actual 
fate  in  store  for  any  of  his  readers  ;  he  is  illustrating  by  a 
passing  metaphor  the  ultimate  destiny  of  those  wdio  deliber- 
ately reject  God — of  those  who,  having  sinned  willingly 
against  light  and  knowledge,  continue  hardened  in  defiant 
impenitence.  Sucli,  for  instance,  would  be  the  position  of 
tlhjse  Jews  who,  having  once  known  Christ,  so  far  aposta- 
tised from  Him  as  to  adopt  the  current  names  of  scorn  by 
which  He  was  described  in  the  Jewish  cryptographs — to 
speak  of  Him  as  "  Absalom  "  or  *'  the  Hung,"  or  to  turn  the 
form  of  His  name  into  an  anagram  of  malediction.^  If  the 
ground  which  God  gives  us  to  till  produces  only  thorns  and 
thistles,  we  must,  as  wSt.  Chrysostom  says,  cut  up  and  burn 
them.  We  must  '*  break  up  our  fallow'ground,  and  not  sow 
among  thorns."*  We  shall  then  be  able  ''to  enjoy  unnum- 
bered blessings  and  to  become  approved."  The  evil  produce 
of  the  soil  nuist  be  consumed  that  the  soil  may  be  saved  for 
better  |)urposes,  just  as  the  bad  work  of  a  workman  must  be 
burned  while  the  f-orkman  shall  be  saved  so  as  by  fire.  But 
il  the  work  of  the  workman  be  always  and  continuously  bad, 
he  is  rejected  ;  and  if  a  soil  brings  forth  nothing  but  things 
rank  and  gross  in  nature,  it  must  itself  be  scathed  with  fire. 
I  he  metaphor  acquires  a  fuller  significance  if  we  think  of 
liie  Jews  to  whom  it  w\as  addressed,  and  remember  that,  but 
a  few  years  afterwards,  their  beloved  city  was  trodden  under 
foot  by  Its  enemies,  and  their  Holy  Temple  was  given  to 
the  devouring  flame. 

i  X'-  '  ♦•  "Y-     S«.  t"o.  Plin.  //.  N".  xviii.  39.  72.  2  Deut.  xxxix.  23. 

,„  .  .•  '  '  'f^'  "•..'♦5=-     IHy  notarikoH,  ^fmach  .V//emo  rVzichro,  "  May  his  name 

•ndin.  ::..lour."J  «  Jer.  iv.  3. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEP.REWS.  25 1 

But  he  proceeds  to  tell  them  that  he  has  a  conviction  that 
they,  his  Christian  readers,  have  adopted  tlie  better  course, 
and  will  inherit  the  better  lot.  He  did  not  doubt  that  they 
were  heirs  of  salvation,  though  he  used  this  language. 
*'  Their  work,  their  alms,  and  all  their  good  endeavours  " 
furnished  a  proof  of  this ;  for  God  is  just,  and  God  does  not 
forget.  They  had  ministered  to  the  saints  ;  they  were  still 
doing  so,  though,  perhaps — as  he  seems  to  hint  with  delicate 
kindness — with  less  zeal  than  before.  He  exhorts  them  not 
to  show  themselves  remiss,  but  with  all  zeal  to  work  out 
their  salvation  to  the  end,  and  so  by  faith  and  endurance  to 
enter  into  that  heritage  which  was  pledged  to  them  not  only 
by  the  word  but  by  the  oath  of  God.  However  severe,  there- 
fore, their  afflictions  had  been,  they  might  rest  upon  a  siu-e 
hope.  The  little  boat  of  their  lives  was  being  tossed  by 
many  a  storm,  yet  it  was  safe,  for  it  was  moored  by  an 
anchor  whicli  could  never  slip  its  hold.^  That  anchor  was 
not  fixed  even  on  the  rock  of  any  earthly  sea,  but  the  hawser 
which  held  it  passed  out  of  sight  behind  the  veil  of  Heaven  ; 
and  in  that  heavenly  sanctuary  One  had  entered  as  a  fore- 
runner on  their  behalf.  He  would  see  that  the  anchor  held  ; 
He  would  keep  guard  over  the  promised  hope, — the  High 
Priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

SECTION    IV. 

THE    ORDER    OF    MELCHIZEDEK. 

In  those  words  the  writer,  with  great  literary  skill,  re- 
sumes the  allusion  which  he  had  introduced  in  v.  10,  and 
had  left  unexplained  in  order  to  prepare  them  for  his  argu- 
ment by  the  exhortation  of  these  intermediate  verses.  But 
now  that  he  has  stimulated  them  to  a  loftier  range  of  spiri- 
tual attainments  by  warning  them  of  the  peril  of  apostasy, 
and  by  encouraging  them  to  perseverance  in  good  works, 
he  can  proceed  with  a  surer  step  to  develop  the  trutlis 
which  were  best  fitted  to  emancipate  them  from  their  temp- 
tation to  relapse. 

"  For  this  Melchizedek,  king  of  Salem,  priest  of  God  most  high.^  who  met  i* 
Abraham  returning  from  the  slaughter  ^  of  the  kings  and  blessed  him,*  to  whom 

'  King  and  Priest.  Zech.  vi.  13  (Serv.  ad  Mn.  iii.  80).     See  the  subsequent  remarks  for 
further  notes  on  this  passage. 

2  The  true  reading  is  05.  not  6  (X,  A,  B,  D,  E,  K).     The  construction  is  an  anakoluthon. 

3  kottJj,  from  Komo),  "  I  cut."     Coinp.  fosh.  x.  20  (LXX.). 

-•  Philo  [De  Abraham^  §  40)  says  that  Melchizedek  "  sacrificed  for  Aljraham  the  ofTcnngs 
of  victory." 


2S2  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

also  Abraham  apportioned  a  tithe  of  all,'  being  first  by  interpretation  King  of 
rifjhtcoiisncss,'^  and  then  also  King  of  Salem,  which  is  King  of  peace  ;  without 
father,  without  mother,  without  lineage, »  having  neither  begiunmg  of  days  nor 
end  of  Hfe,  but  having  been  likened  to  the  Son  of  God*  remaineth  a  Priest  for 
perpetuity  "  (vii.  1—3). 

This  comparison  of  tlie  Priesthood  of  Christ  to  that  of 
Mclchizcdek  occupies  so  cardinal  a  position,  that  we  must 
pause  over  this  passage  if  we  are  to  form  any  true  concep- 
tion of  the  meaning  of  the  Epistle. 

Let  us  first  endeavour  to  clear  up  the  separate  expres- 
sions. 

All  that  we  know  historically  respecting  Melchizedek  is 
contained  in  two  verses  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  (Gen.  xiv. 
18,  19). 

We  are  there  told  that  Avhen  Amrapliel,  king  of  Shinar, 
with  three  allies  made  war  on  Bera,  king  of  Sodom,  and  his 
four  allies,  and  defeated  them,  they  carried  away  the  plun- 
der and  captives  of  the  Cities  cU"  the  Plain.  Among  these 
captives  was  Lot,  whose  goods  they  had  also  seized.  Abra- 
ham, arming  his  three  hundred  and  eighteen  servants,  and 
assisted  by  the  Amorite  chiefs  Mamre,  Aner,  and  Eshcol, 
pursued  the  victors  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Damascus,  de- 
feated them,  rescued  their  prisoners,  and  recovered  the 
spoil.  On  his  return  the  king  of  Sodom  went  out  to  thank 
and  greet  him,  and  met  him  "at  the  valley  of  Shaveh,  which  is 
the  king's  dale."  "And  Melchizedek  king  of  Salem  brought 
forth  bread  and  wine  :  and  he  was  the  priest  of  the  most 
high  God.*^  And  he  blessed  him,  and  said,  Blessed  be  Abram 
of  the  most  liigh  God,  possesso'-  of  heaven  and  earth  :  and 
blessed  be  the  most  high  God,  which  hath  delivered  thine 
enemies  irto  thy  hand.  And  he  srave  him  tithes  of 
all." 

If  we  first  take  the  narrative  as  it  stands,  we  observe 
that  it  is  not  stated  that  ^Melchizedek  went  out  to  meet 
Abraham,  as  it  is  stated  of  the  king  of  Sodom.  It  is,  how-^ 
ever,  a  natural  inference  that  he  did  so,  and  we  see  from 
the  reference  of  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  that  such  was  part 
of  the  Jewish  tradition  on  the  subject.     The  place  of  meet- 


«  If. .  of  .ill  h,^  spoils.  2  V.  hifra. 

.Nyfi'faAoyiTTo?,  which  occurs  here  only,  cannot  mean  *' without  rt'r^c^w/'"  (see  ver.  6), 
UiouKli.  mislcil  hv  il.is  crn.r,  lynatius  (/t/.  ad  rhilad.)  reckons  Melchizedek  among  those 

*'•'>  h  ••  ••  ■•  '    '  He  nfc. 

.  *  '  '  ""»  ""ly  refers  to  Ps.  ex.  4,  but  speaks  of  Melchizedek  as  a  Divinely  ap- 

P"""  ihood,  which  lie  is  not  recorded  to  have  either  received  from  any  ances- 

'•*•■*."■ "'     '  '"  •"*">'  sncrcssors. 

»  I  he  union  of  k.iy.iUy  m\A  Priesthood  was  regarded  as  peculiarly  sacred.     ' '  Rex  Anius, 
rex  Idem  hominum  l'hu:bniiic  saccrdos"  (Virg.  j-En.  iii.  80). 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  253 

ing  is  uncertain.  Shavch  lias  never  been  iflentificcl,  nor  is 
anything  known  of  the  King's  dale.'  The  name  Melchize- 
dek  may  mean  ''  king  of  righteousness" — a  rendering  found 
in  the  Targums,"and  here  introduced  perhaps  with  reference 
to  Is.  xxxii.  I,  where  it  is  said  of  the  Messiah,  "  Behold  a 
king  shall  reign  in  righteousness.'"*  It  may  also  mean 
'' righteous  king,"  as  it  is  rendered  in  Josephus\and  Piiilo.' 
It  is  a  name  closely  analogous  to  Adonizedek,  which  means 
**  Lord  of  righteousness"  or  *' justice,"  and  is  a  natural 
name  for  an  Eastern  king  whose  chief  function  in  time  of 
peace  was  that  of  a  judge.  Adonizedek  is  called  king  of  Jeru- 
salem," but  Melchizedek  is  called  king  of  Salem.  It  has 
been  a  disputed  point  for  centuries  whether  by  Salem  is 
meant  Jerusalem  or  not." 

That  this  king  of  a  Canaanite  city  should  be  "  a  priest  of 
the  most  high  God"  is  an  interesting  circumstance.  At- 
tempts have  been  made  to  explain  it  away.  The  Hebrew 
phrase  for  the  most  high  God  is  El  Eliofi,  and  it  appears 
that  the  Phoenicians  also  had  a  god  to  whom  they  gave  the 
title  of  Elion,  or  The  Highest.®  Nothing,  however,  can  be 
clearer  than  that  Moses  intended  the  word  to  be  understood 
in  its  fullest  sense  of  the  True  God."  Nor  is  there  any  ex- 
cuse for  being  incredulous  about  the  fact,  for,  when  we  re- 
member the  longevity  of  the  patriarchs,  it  is  probable  that 
the  worship  of  God  w^ould  have  been  preserv^ed  in  some 
families.  And  the  primary  intention  of  the  sacred  historian 
in  mentioning  this  incident  may  have  been  a  desire  to  do 
honour  to  this  kingly  priest,  whose  dignity  was  recognised 
with  such  deep  reverence  by  Abraham  himself,  that  he  ac- 
cepted his  solemn  blessing,  and  gave  him  a  tithe  of  his 
spoils. 

It  was  natural  that  a  circumstance  so  remarkable  should 
attract  the  attention  of  the  Jews,  and  that  they  should  see 


1  Josephus  calls  it  Uehiov  ^acnXiKov  (Antt.  i.  lo,  §  2).  There  is  nothing  to  identify  it  wiih 
"the  King's  dale"  in  which  Absalom  built  himself  a  pillar.  Even  if  it  be  the  same  "  King's 
dale"  it  7uay  have  been  in  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  if  the  reading  of  2  Sam.  xiii.  23  be  right ;  but 
there,  instead  of  "  beside  Epliraini,"  there  is  a  various  reading,  "  the  Valley  of  Rephaim." 

2  In  Hereshith  Rabba,  f.  42,  «,  it  is  said  that  Tsedck  was  a  name  of  Jerusalem,  as  is  im- 
plied in  Is.  i.  21.  ■'  Righteousness  lodged  in  it."  Aben  Ezra  makes  Melchizedek  mean 
"  King  of  a  righteous  place." 

3  Compare  Is.  ix.  6  :  Zech.  ix.  9 ;  Mai.  iv.  2  :  i  Cor.  i.  30. 

■•  Antt.  i.  ID,  §  2  ;  B.  J.  vi.  10  ;  6  tj^  Trarpia  yKutaaj)  kAtj^ci?  ^airiAeu?  fii'/caio? 

^  Lfo-.  Alleg^.  iii.  25.  '  '  "  Josh.  x.  3. 

'  Sec  Excursus  X.,  "  'Salem'  and  Jerusalem." 

s  Philo  Hybl.  ofr.  Euseb.  Pracp.  F.v.  i.  10.  A  trace  of  this  title  [alonim  -.i'alonuth~\'\\- 
onim  velionoth)  is  perhaps  discoverable  in  the  Poenulus  of  Plautus. 

"  Though  this  is  the  earliest  occurrence  of  the  name,  it  is  found  frequently  in  the  Penta- 
teuch and  Psalm.s.     Abraham  repeats  it  with  "Jehovah  "  in  vcr.  22. 


254  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

something  memorable  in  tlie  priesthood  of  a  king  who  en- 
joyed iiis  sacerdotal  dignity  so  many  centuries  before  the 
days  of  Aaron,  and  who  had  been  treated  with  so  much 
honour  by  their  great  ancestor  himself.  Hence  it  was  also 
natural  that  the  Hebrew  poet  in  the  iioth  Psalm/  in  proph- 
esying of  a  Prince  and  Deliverer  wiio  w^as  the  type  of  the 
Messfah,  should  say,  "The  Lord  sware,  and  will  not  repent. 
Thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek." 
Tiie  Messianic  interpretation  of  this  Psalm  was  never  dis- 
puted.'' If  it  had  been,  nothing  would  have  been  easier  for 
the  Jews  than  to  set  aside  the  question  about  David's  son 
and  David's  Lord  which  our  Lord  propounded  to  them,  and 
which  they  expressed  their  inability  to  solve/  But  even  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan  renders  the  first  verse  of  this  Psalm  by 
"The  Lord  said  to  His  Word." 

But  when  Melchizedek  was  thus  elevated  into  a  type  of 
the  Messiah,  the  brief  notice  respecting  him  was  studied 
with  tlie  minutest  scrutiny,  and  mysteries  were  supposed  to 
lurk  in  every  word.  Thus  so  simple  a  circumstance  as  his 
bringing  forth  to  Abraham  bread  and  wine  is  in  Bereshith 
Rabba  ex])laincd  by  Rabbi  Samuel  Bar  Nachman  to  mean 
that  he  taught  to  Abraham  the  ordinances  of  the  High 
Priesthood,  the  bread  being  a  type  of  the  shewbread,  and 
the  wine  of  libations.  Other  Rabbis,  referring  to  Prov.  ix. 
5 — "  Come  eat  of  my  bread,  and  drink  of  the  wine  which  I 
have  mingled  " — say  that  Melchizedek  explained  the  Law 
to  Abraham.  These  it  is  obvious  are  mere  fancies  of  a  fan- 
tastic exegesis  bent  on  seizing  every  opportunity  to  proclaim 
the  eternity  of  the  Levitic  dispensation.  Yet  multitudes  of 
Christian  writers,  imbued  with  the  spirit  which  will  see  in 
Scripture  more  than  Scripture  sanctions,  make  this  simple 
act  of  hospitality  a  sacerdotal  oblation,  and  argue  (with 
Bcllarmine)  that  it  was  the  one  characteristic  of  his  Priest- 
liood.*  But  that  the  bread  and  wine  were  not  typically  in- 
tended is  clear  from  the  silence  of  the  Epistle.  Had  the 
application  been  legitimate,  a  point  so  germane  to  the 
writer's  purpose  could  not  have  been  passed  over  without 
notice,  especially  as  Philo,  who  has  very  similar  views  re- 
specting Melchizedek,  ventures  to  say  that  on  this  occasion 

>  In  the  dUc,  Ps.  ex  isc.-»lled  "A  Psalm  of  David  ; "  the  LXX.  call  it  "An  ode  to  the 
A'Kynan. 

ITTP  7:*^^"^'  ^''••'^'  where,  ol  ihc  High  Priest  Joshua  (Jcshua  in  Ezra  and  Neh.)  as  a 
of  the  Mcasiah,  it  is  s.iid,  "  He  sh.-ill  be,"  or  perLips  "Iherc  shall  be,"   "a  priest  upon 


type 


hiMhrone  3  Matt.  xxii.  44. 

«  On  Ihm  perversion  sec  Watcrland,  Wo'k^^  v.  165;  Jewell,  Rcbly  to  Harding^  art, 
XMi.  ;  and  on  the  other  »idc,  Jackson,  On  the  Creed^  ix.,  %  ii.  10. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  255 

he  did  offer  a  sacrifice  for  victory — tn-LviKLa  i6v€/  What  an 
opportunity  for  powerful  argument  -WMnild  have  been  fur- 
nished if  Apollos  could  have  said  that  Melchizedck's  sacri- 
fice was  not  an  offering  of  victims  in  the  Jewish  fashion,  but 
was  an  offering  which  prefigured  the  Christian  oblations  of 
bread  and  wine  !  Of  such  a  sacrifice  he  does  not  say  a 
word.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  acts  in  which  the  priest- 
hood of  Melchizedek  consisted,  Apollos  does  not  mention 
sacrifice  among  them.  He  does  not  so  much  as  allude  to 
the  bread  and  wine — much  less  docs  he  imply  that  it  was  an 
Eucharistic  offering. 

But  he  touches  on  other  points  w^hich  seem  to  enhance 
the  dignity  or  mysteriousness  of  Melchizedek  by  saying  that 
he  was  ''fatherless,  motherless,  without  pedigree,  having 
neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life." 

His  method  of  illustration,  like  that  of  which  St.  Paul 
occasionally  made  use,  is  Rabbinic  in  its  general  character, 
but  not  fantastic  or  inadmissible.  He  takes  a  Scriptural 
fact  as  it  stands,  and  merely  shows  its  typical  value.  It  is, 
however,  this  passage  Avhich  has  originated  so  many  unten- 
able conjectures  about  Melchizedek,  and  which  has  been 
made  an  excuse  for  most  strange  hypotheses.  Such  discus- 
sions would  never  have  arisen  if  we  had  been  more  familiar 
with  the  way  of  handling  Scripture  which  had  become  pre- 
valent at  Alexandria,  and  was  perpetuated  for  centuries  in 
the  later  schools  of  Tiberias  and  Babylon. 

Of  course,  if  the  Avords  be  taken  literally  they  can  have 
but  one  meaning.  One  who  had  neither  father,  nor  mother, 
nor  ancestors,  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life, 
could  not  be  a  human  being  at  all.  Accordingly  Melchize- 
dek has  been  regarded  by  some  commentators,  even  of  this 
century,  as  ''the  Angel  of  the  Presence,"  the  "Captain  of 
the  Lord's  Host,"  "the  Divine  Angel  of  the  Lord,"  tiie  Sec- 
ond Person  of  the  Ever  Blessed  Trinity,  the  Jewish  "  She- 
chinah"  and  Metatron,'  who  continually  appeared  to  the 
Fathers  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  CunaMis 
even  refers  to  this  incident  in  explanation  of  our  Lord's 
words  to  the  Jew^s,  "Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see 
my  day,  and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad."      Marcus   Eremita 


'  De  Ahrahnnt. 

2  Metatnm  is  a  Talmudic  word  of  forei|:n  origin,  perhaps  a  rude  hybrid  of  fitra  dpoi/io?,  or 
"sharer  of  the  Thrnne."  He  was  the  chief  of  the  four  AriRcls  who  were  "  .M.istcrs  of  Wis- 
dom." He  .stands  in  a  subordinate  relation  to  Clod,  but  to  him  are  attributed  many  of  the 
works  of  llje  "  Angel  of  the  Presence, "—a  sort  of  Pre-incarnatc  Mcssuili  (sec  Han\l)Urger.  s  t.). 


256  Tin:    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY 

mentions  a  sect  which  beUeved  Mclchizedck  to  be  ''God  the 
Word,  previous  to  incarnation."  ' 

Otiiers,  again,  thought  that  Melchizedek  was  the  Holy 
Spirit."  Tiiis  was  the  opinion  maintained  in  an  anonymous 
^vork— probably  written  by  the  deacon  Hilarius— which  St. 
Jerome  received  from  Evagrius,  and  which  led  him  to  an 
elaborate  study  of  what  had  been  Avritten  on  this  question, 
whicli  even  in'his  day  was  eagerly  debated.  He  found  that 
Origen  and  Didymus  believed  Melchizedek  to  be  an  angel, 
and'  tiiat  the  Jews  supposed  him  to  be  Shem,  the  son  of 
Noah,"  who — as  they  showed  by  calculation — might  have  sur- 
vived till  the  days  of  Abraham.'  It  is  hard  to  see  why,  in 
that  case,  he  should  not  have  been  introduced  by  his  own 
name.  Yet  this  hypothesis  satisfied  Lyra,  Cajetan,  Melanc- 
thon,  and  even  Luther  and  Selden.  Others  again,  with 
about  as  much  justification,  suppose  that  he  was  Ham.  Cal- 
met  regards  him  as  a  re-appearance  of  Enoch.  Nork,  with 
hardly  less  absurdity,  discovers  in  him  the  Phoenician  god 
Sydik,  or  Saturn  ! '" 

I  unhesitatingly  follow  those  who  reject  these  idle  hy- 
potheses, and  who  hold  with  Hippolytus,  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea,  and  other  Fathers,  as  well  as  the  ablest  recent 
commentators,  that  Melchizedek  was  neither  more  nor  less 
than  what  Moses  tells  us  that  he  was — namely,  Melchizedek, 
a  Priest  and  King  of  the  little  Canaanite  town  of  Salem,  to 
whom,  because  he  was  a  w^orshipper  of  the  True  God,  Abra- 
ham paid  tithes,  and  from  whom  he  received  a  blessing." 
His  importance  was  purely  typical  ;  his /^rjt?;^^/ importance 
was  very  small.  It  is  amazing  that  any  one  familiar  with 
Rabbinic  exegesis  should  hesitate  for  a  moment  in  coming 
to  this  conclusion.  In  the  Alexandrian  School  especially, 
the  habit  of  allegorising  had  been  carried  so  far  as  to  imperil, 
and  even  obliterate,  the  plain  sense  of  the  sacred  narrative. 
Tlie  allegorists  saw  or  imagined  mysteries  in  the  silence  of 

'  I'.piphan.  /A»«»r.  Iv.  7  :  Ambrose,  De  Abraham,  i.  3.  All  these  opinions  and  quotations 
arc  ililij;f:iuly  collected  by  BIcck. 

■Mlpipli.iii.  f/aer.  Ixvii.  3.  This  wild  theory  was  maintained  by  the  sect  of  Melchizedck- 
Hcs  (sec  Dorncr,  1.  515). 

»  Rabbi  Joch.in.i.i  Ben  Niiri  says:  "The  Holy  One— blessed  he  He  !— took  Shem,  and 
scpar.itcd  him  to  be  a  priest  to  Himself,  that  he  might  serve  before  Him.     He  also  caused  His 


Ui»cnouKh  tos.^y  th.it  (i)Shem  is  not  iyeMeaAoyijTO?  :  his  lineage  is  recorded;  (2)  that 
Canaan  was  in  the  territory  of  H.iin  (see  Dcyling,  Ol>s.  Sair.  ii.  73  ;  l'>ochart,  Pkalf^.  ii.  1  ; 
lackv,n.  On  the  Crctd.  I'.k.  ix.).  'rhis  opinion  of  the  Jews,  though  embraced  bv  ^Luther, 
Lightfool,  etc.,  Kccms  to  have  l>cen  post-Christian.  5  Nork,  Bibl.  ^Tyt/iol.  i.  154. 

.Sec  Cave,  Ltves  0/ the  Apostla,  xxii.     Tiiis  is  the  view  of  Josephus  {B.  J.  vi.  10). 


THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  257 

Scripture  no  less  than  in  its  simplest  circumstances,  and 
even  in  the  numerical  values  and  methods  of  writing  its  let- 
ters. The  writer  of  this  Epistle,  familiar  with  tlie  works  of 
Philo,  adopts  the  Alexandrian  method  in  arguing  with  those 
by  whom  it  would  be  regarded  as  specially  cogent.  But 
he  neither  abuses  the  method  nor  carries  it  to  untenable  ex- 
tremes. He  sees  that  the  suddenness  with  which  Melchize- 
dek  is  introduced  into  the  sacred  story,  and  the  subsequent 
silence  respecting  him,  are  reasons  for  regarding  him  as  a 
Divinely-appointed  type  of  the  Messiah.  The  Book  of  Gen- 
esis, as  Bishop  Wordswortli  says,  casts  on  him  a  shadow  of 
eternity  ;  gives  him  a  typical  eternity.  But  he  expressly 
treats  of  him  as  a  type,  and  a  type  onh\  of  One  whose  "office 
was  incomparably  beyond  that  of  the  legal  Economy  " — 
his  person  greater,  his  undertaking  weightier,  his  design 
more  sublime  and  excellent,  his  oblation  more  meritorious, 
his  prayers  more  prevalent,  his  office  more  durable  than 
even  any  wdiose  business  it  w^as  to  intercede  and  mediate 
tTetween  God  and  man.'  Had  Melchizedek  been  the  Meta- 
tron,  or  the  Pre-incarnate  Messiah,  he  woidd  not  have  been 
a  type,  but  the  Divine  Son  Flimself  ;  he  would  not  have  been 
likened  to  Christ,  but  would  have  been  Christ.  All  the  con- 
jectures respecting  him  were  excusable  in  times  when  the 
peculiarities  of  Semitic  thought  were  little  known;  but  now 
that  the  hfstory  of  exegesis  is  better  understood,  such  sugges- 
tions can  only  be  ranked  among  obsolete  mistakes. 

For  there  are  abundant  instances  to  prove  that  such 
phrases  as  ''fatherless,  motherless,  without  pedigree,"  were 
used,  not  only  in  Rabbinic  Hebrew,  but  even  in  Classical 
Greek  and  in  Latin,  of  those  whose  parents  and  ancestry 
were  simply  nnrceordcd.  Thus  Ion,  in  the  tragedy  of  Eurip- 
ides, calls  himself  '^  motherless"  when  he  supposes  himself 
to  be  the  son  of  a  slave-woman  ;"  and  Scipio  addressed  the 
mongrel  crowd  in  the  Forum  as  people  "who  had  neither 
father  nor  mother;"^  and  Horace  speaks  of  himself  as 
"  sprung  from  no  ancestors."  *  Similarly  we  find  in  Bereshith 
Rabba  that  "a  Gentile  has  no  father,"'  i.e.,  the  father  of  a 
proselyte  is  of  no  account  in  Jewish  pedigrees.  The  Jewish 
priests  were  obliged  to  keep  the  most  careful  genealogies, 
and  some  families  were  for  ever  excluded  from  the  priest- 
hood in  Ezra's  days  because  they  could  not  produce  adequate 


1  Cave,  /.  c.  -  Ion,  850.  =•  Cic.  lie  Orat.  ii.  64. 

•»  Hor.  Sat.  i.  6,  10.  ^  f.  18,  b. 

17 


258  Till-:    KARLV    DAVS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

proof  of  tlicir  priestly  descent."  And  not  only  must  they 
be  able  to  produce  the  names  of  their  fathers  and  their  an- 
cestry up  t(^  Aaron,  but,  further,  their  marriages  were  reg- 
ulated bv  the  most  rigid  restrictions.'  It  was  remarkable  to 
the  Jews  of  Ezra's  day  that  Melchizedek  should  be  intro- 
duced iis  <? //vV-j/— and  as  a  priest  of  such  striking  dignity- 
while  not  a  word  is  said  of  his  father  or  mother,  or  ances- 
tors, or  birth,  or  death.'  In  the  mystic  treatment  of  Scrip- 
ture by  the  Talmudists,  arguments  are  drawn  from  this 
silence.  Thus,  from  the  non-mention  of  Cain's  death  in 
Scripture  Pliilo  draws  the  lesson  that  evil  never  dies  among 
tiic  human  race.  The  very  vagueness  in  which  this  grand 
figure  of  Melchi/cdck  is  left,  although  he  is  the  first  who  in 
Scripture  is  called  a  priest,  makes  him  better  suited  to  stand 
as  the  type  of  one  who  was  endowed  with  an  eternal  priest- 
hood. The  words  of  the  writer  taken  literally  are  applicable 
to  Jesus  alone,'  and  are  only  applicable  to  Melchizedek  in 
the  secondary  and  metaphorical  sense  which  I  have  ex- 
plained. H^  stands  on  the  page  of  Scripture  as  an  eternlfil 
priest,  because  Scripture  witnesses  alike  to  his  priesthood 
and  his  life  without  an  allusion  to  the  abrogation  of  the  one 
or  the  close  of  the  other. ^  If  any  harshness  still  remains,  it 
is  removed  by  the  consideration  that  in  the  mind  of  tlie 
writer  the  type  and  the  antitype  are  so  simultaneously  prom- 
inent that  the  language  which  refers  to  the  onels  mingled 
with  that  which  is  more  strictly  applicable  to  the  other.  To 
ignore  these  facts,  and  to  regard  Melchizedek  as  a  Divine 
being,  still  alive  as  a  priest,  though  he  only  occurs  in  a  sin- 
gle clause  of  a  simple  historic  narrative,"  is  to  apply  to  Scrip- 
ture the  methods  of  explanation  which  reduce  it  to  an  in- 
soluble enigma,  and  which  subject  the  souls  of  unbiassed 
readers  to  a  strain  which  it  was  never  intended  that  they 

'  I'.zr.  ii.  6i.  62  ;  Nchcm.  vii.  63,  64.  2  j,ev.  xxi.  7,  13,  14. 

"  "'rhc  Mdi:hizci?ck  of  human  history  has,  indeed,  died  ;  but  the  Melchizedek  of  sacred 

i"'?'  ''^*^*'  without  dying,  fixed  for  ever  as  one  n<ho  lives  by  the  pen  of  tlie  sacred  historian, 
and  thus  stamped  as  a  type  of  the  Son,  the  ever-living  Priest  "  (Dclitzsch).  "  He  is  simply 
an  ot/iir-.i'tsc  uukiioivn  kinp,  \shose  meeting  with  Abraham  is,  however,  in  the  liistory  of  re- 
d- ii.pti.jn.  i.f  the  greatest  historical  and  typical  importance"  (Moll). 

/•u  li  ^""^^  *■  without  mother"  might  seem  inapplicable,  and  would  be  inapplicable  if  the 
(  hnrth  had  ever  sanctioned  the  title  I'heotokos  applied  to  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  but,  as  'Jheodo- 
rcl  "Kl'tly  ''b'^crves,  ''as  (iod,  }Ie  has  been  begotten  of  the  Father  alone." 
I  r«  T  ,'"'"*  ''  "  "^"fost  c/iiiiiish"  to  suppose  that  the  writer  meant  no  more  than  that 
Mic  hic,  death,  etc.,  of  Melchizedek  are  not  recorded  ;  and  therefore  he  regards  him  as  a  I)i- 
\Htc  ''^"»'4  aiM.ut  whom  we  are  not  to  be  wise  above  what  is  written,  and  about  whom  we  are 
not  called  upon  to  cni^nire  further!  It  is  not  "almost,"  but  "quite"  childish  to  pretend  to 
I  <tcn>rct  Scripture  by  ignoring  the  plain  peculiarities  of  the  language  and  method  of  thoiisht 
•"{"•"?  "^"y-  by  whom  It  was  written.  And  the  misapplied  text  about  "  not  being  wise  above 
Miat  i%  written"  is  usually  degraded  into  an  excuse  for  dein^  wise  above  what  is  v.  rittcn— to 
Uic  rxtrni,  )W)mctimc<,  of  utter  ^upcrslilion. 

•  JoMrpliU!*  »iinply  calls  him  "  a  chief  of  the  Canaanltes." 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  259 

should  bear.  Any  one  who  helps  to  rescue  the  Holy  Book 
from  these  extravagancies  of  superstitious  letter-worship 
renders  to  faith  a  service  for  which  he  may  be  reb\iked  by 
contemporary  ignorance,  but  which  will  bear  good  fruit  in 
future  times. 

"  But  observe,"  >  he  continues,  "  how  great  was  this  man  to  whom  even 
Abraham  gave  a  tithe  out  of  his  best  spoils  '^ — he,  the  patriarch.  ^  And  those  of 
the  sons  of  Levi  who  receive  the  priestly  function,*  have  commandment  to  tithe 
the  people  according  to  the  law  ^ — that  is,  their  brethren,  sprung  though  they 
are  from  the  loins  of  Abraham  ;  but  he  whose  descent  is  not  derived  from  them 
hath  tithed  Abraham,  and  hath  blessed  "  the  bolder  of  the  promises.  Now,  be- 
yond all  dispute,  that  which  is  inferior  is  ever  blessed  by  the  superior.  And  in 
this  case  dying  men  '  receive  tithes  ;  but  in  f/iai  case  he  of  whom  it  is  testified 
that  he  lives. «  And,  so  to  speak,  by  means  of  Abraham,  even  Levi,  who  re- 
ceiveth  tithes,  hath  been  tithed;  for  he  was  still  in  the  loins  of  his  father  when 
Abraham  met  him  "  (vii.  4 — 10). 

The  argument  of  this  passage  is  the  superiority  of  Mel- 
chizedek's  priesthood  to  that  of  Aaron  in  seven  particu- 
lars : —  ^ 

1  The  proper  difference  between  opw,  "I  see,"  and  dewpw,  "  I  observe"  (though  it  is  not 
always  kept  in  common  usage),  is  given  by  Phavorinus,  who  says  that  opia  is  applied  to  bodily, 
and  ^ewpw  to  spiritual,  insight. 

2  aKpoOivia.,  derived  from  aKpo?  and  fits,  properly  means  "  what  is  taken  from  the  top  of  the 
heap,"  but  it  is  used  for  "the  first  fruits  of  spoils  "  and  sometimes,  apparently  (according  to 


Hesychius  and  Phavorinus),  for  "  spoils"  generally. 
s  The  position  of  o  TraTpJap^ifS  is  very  forcible,  a 


position  01  o  irdTp^idpxrj^  is  very  forcible,  and  the  oratorical  style  of  the  writer  evi- 
dently makes  him  fond  of  these  sounding  collocations.  The  use  of  the  lonicus  a  minore 
("""")  to  end  the  sentence  makes  the  word  still  more  prominent.  A  whole  argument  about 
the  giandeur  of  Abrah.am  is  thus  condensed  into  one  emphatic  word.  (Comp.  Acts  vii.  i6, 
43  ;  xvviii.  31  ;   Gal.  iii.  i.) 

*  Aristotle  defines  this  word  iepareCa  as  meaning  "the  care  concerning  the  gods"  (/V/. 
vii.  8).     It  seems  to  be  a  little  more  specific  than  ieptacrvvrj. 

5  A  needless  difficulty  has  been  made  of  this  expression  because  the  Priests  did  not  direct- 
ly receive  tithes  from  the  people,  but  only  from  the  Levites,  who  paid  them  a  tithe  of  what  they 
received  as  tithes  (Numb,  xviii.  22,  23,  26;  Neh.  x.  38).  Hence  Biesenthal  proposes  to  read 
Aewii'  for  Aaoi'.  But  (a)  the  Priests''/ni^/ii  take  these  tithes  direcdy,  as  Jewish  tradition  said 
that  they  did  in  the  days  of  Ezra  (Vevamoth,  f.  86.  d  ;  Hechoroth,  f.  4,  u)  :  and  (/3)  the  ex- 
pression is  a  general  one — ''  qui  facit  per  alium,  facit  per  se.'^  The  question,  as  Dr. 
Moulton  says,  is  not  one  of  emolument,  but  of  position,  and  the  Priests  stood  alone  in  receiv- 
ing tithes  and  paying  none. 

•  The  perfects  express  the  absolute  and  permanent  fact. 

'  I.e.,  men  under  the  liability  to  die,  as  in  the  well-known  lines — 

"  He  preached  as  one  who  ne'er  should  preach  again, 
And  as  a  dying  man  to  dying  men." 

8  We  know  nothing  of  the  death  of  .Melchizedek  :  so  far,  therefore,  as  the  page  of  Scripture 
is  concerned,  he  always  lives.  The  argument  is  analogous  to  that  which  I  have  already  men- 
tioned, derived  by  Philo  from  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  the  death  of  Cain  in  Scripture. 
To  a  writer  addressing  those  who  in  the  Rabbinic  Midrashim  heard  daily  specimens  of  simi- 
lar applications,  nothing  would  be  more  natural  than  to  argue  that  the  absence  of  all  mention 
of  the  death  of  Melchizedek  made  him,  in  yet  another  aspect,  an  eternal  type  of  Christ.  The 
difference  between  his  method  and  ours  is  not  in  the  point  of7'ie-.i<,  but  only  in  the  method 
of  statement.  Writing  in  these  days  we  might  .argue  thus  :  The  Psalmist  says  that  (iod  had 
sworn  that  the  Priest-king,  the  Messiah  ol  whom  he  is  prophesying,  should  be  •'  a  priest  for 
ever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek."  We  le.arn  from  the  Hook  of  tienesis  that  the  Priesthood 
of  Melchizedek  was  one  of  such  high  dignity  as  to  be  recognised  even  by  the  Patriarch  Abr.a- 
ham;  and  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  in  its  magnificent  and  untransmitted  independence,  it  is 
evidedtly  spoken  of  as  superior  to  the  Aaroiiic  Priesthood.  And  it  is  also  a  type  of  the  Nlcs- 
sianic  Priesthood,  because  just  as  Christ  was  eternal  and  superior  to  all  earthly  relationships, 
soon  the  pau:e  of  Scripture  Melchizedek  stands  without  father,  mother,  or  descent,  and  with 
no  record  of  human  birth  or  human  death.  This  is  all  condensed  by  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
into  such  expressions  as  those  in  the  text. 


260  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

(i.)  Because  even  Abraham  gave  him  tithes. 

(ii.)  Because  even  the  yet-unborn  Levi  may  be  said  to 
have  paid  tithes  in  the  person  of  Abraham. 

(iii.)  Because  it  is  the  superior  who  gives  the  blessing, 
and  Melcliizedek  blessed  Abraham. 

(iv.)  Because  the  Aaronic  priests  die,  but  Melchizedek 
stands  as  a  type  of  undying  priesthood. 

(v.)  Because  the  permanence  of  his  Priesthood  implied 
the  abrogation  of  the  whole  Law  on  which  the  Levitic 
Priesthood  was  grounded. 

If  there  was  a  transference  of  the  Priesthood  there  was 
necessarily  also  a  transference  of  the  Law.  Had  there  been 
in  the  Levitic  Law  any  power  of  perfectionment,  what  need 
would  there  have  been  for  a  different  priest  ^  to  rise  of 
whom  it  was  expressly  said,  not  that  he  was  ''after  the  order 
of  Aaron,"  but  that  he  was  ''  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  "  ? 
And  ''  our  Lord,"  '  in  whom  was  fulfilled  the  type  of  Eternal 
Priesthood,  7i>as  a  different  Priest,  seeing  that  He  has  sprung^ 
from  a  different  tribe  than  that  of  the  Aaronic  priests — namely, 
the  royal  but  non-priestly  tribe  of  Judah.*  Christ  is  a 
Priest,  not  in  accordance  with  ''  the  law  of  a  fleshen  com- 
mandment" — i.e.,  with  tl^  transitory  system  which  was 
hedged  round  with  the  limitations  of  earthly  relationships  '" 
— but  in  accordance  with  the  power  of  that  indissoluble  life  ® 

•  (Tfpov,  "a  different,"  not  merely  aWov  ,  "another." 

*  This  passage  is  memorable  as  being  thejirst  in  which  this  expression— now  so  familiar 
and  universal — is  applied  to  Christ.     It  marks  an  advance  in  the  growth  of  Christianity. 

s  ai/areTaAKei',  a  word  almost  invariably  used  of  the  sunrise  (Mai.  iv.  2  ;  Is.  Ix.  i  ;  Lk.  xii. 
54  :  2  Pet.  i.  19),  though  also  of  the  springing  of  plants  (Zech.  iii.  i  ;  vi.  12  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5, 
where  the  LXX.  render  "the  Branch"  by  'AvcTokr)  ;  and  Is.  xliv.  4  ;  Ezek.  xvii.  6). 

*  The  writer  does  not  touch  on  the  doubt  which  liung  over  the  High  Priesthood  of  his  time. 
If  his  readers  were  Palestinian  Jews,  t/uy  at  least,  and  probably  all  Jews,  would  be  quick  to 
catch  the  fresh  force  which  was  added  to  his  arguments  by  this  circumstance.  Those  Sad- 
ducean  hierarchs  had  been  introduced  by  Herod."  They  were  of  priestly,  but  it  was  far  from 
certain  that  they  were  of  high-pricstly,  descent  (Jos.  Afitt.  xx.  10  ;  xv.  3,  §  i).  Philo,  who 
was  himself  of  Aaronic  descent,  uses  the  expression  apxtepeus  »//€u6w;'v/jios  {0J>/>.  ii.  246, 
Mangcy). 

»  Neither  this  writer  nor  St.  Paul  would  have  called  the  Law  "carnal "  (o-apKiKo?),  a  term 
which  he  expressly  disclaims  (Rom.  vii.  14).  The  true  reading  is  o-ap/ciVTjs  (X,  A,  B,  C,  D, 
etc.  :  I  Cor   in.  1  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  3),  as  here  explained. 

•  The  balance  and  rhythm  of  the  original  {parisosis,  ^aromoiosis)  are  characteristic  of  this 
wntcr,  but  not  of  St.  Paul.  Instances  of  this  style  may  no  doubt  be  found  in  St.  Paul's 
Lpistlcs,  U-cause,  as  I  have  shown  in  my  Life  of  St.  Paul  (\.  627),  he  had  probably  had 
•omc  initial  training  in  the  rhetorical  schools  of  Tarsus,  and  there  is  scarcely  a  single  figure 
of  speech  or  technical  method  of  construction  which  he  does  not  sometimes  use.  But  they  are 
noyc^arrtefmsftc  of  him;  they  do  not  enter  into  the  very  heart  of  the  periodic  structure 
Which  he  naturally  adopts.  If  1  may  use  a  current  distinction,  St.  Paul  is  often  rhetorical— 
I.e.,  he  writes  with  a  passion  which  finds  natural  expression  in  the  most  forcible  figures  of 
speech  ;  Jnil  he  is  scarcely  ii\<zx oratorical— i.e.,  he  never  studies  the  form  of  his  sentences  with 
a  view  to  pleasing  or  satisfying  the  ear.  He  does  not  habitually  adopt  a  stately,  sounding,  and 
impressive  style.  Now,  the  writer  of  this  Kpislle  is  scarcely  ever  impassioned  ;  he  is  never 
quite  swept  away  by  (he  force  of  his  own  feelings,  as  St.  Paul  repeatedly  is  ;  and  he  is  always 
oratorical— It  was  evidently  natural  to  him  to  adopt  such  expressions  and  such  a  periodic 
tlnicturc  as  fill  and  gratify  the  ear,  while  at  the  same  time  they  give  impressiveness  to  the  ar- 


THE   EriSTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  26 1 

which  is  indicated  by  the  swearing  of  the  oaths  that  He 
should  be  ''  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek." 
From  the  change,  then,  of  the  Priesthood  we  infer  notliing 
less  than  the  disannulment  of  the  preceding  commandment  * 
because  of  its  weakness  and  unprofitableness — (for  the  Law 
perfected  nothing) — and  the  introduction  of  a  better  hope, 
by  means  of  which  we  draw  nigh  to  God.'' 

(vi.)  It  was  superior  because  it  was  founded  on  the  swear- 
ing of  an  oath/ — namely,  that  of  Psalm  cix.  4 — which  was 
not  the  case  with  the  Levitic  Priests.  "Of  so  much  better 
a  covenant "  ■*  hath  Jesus  become  a  surety." 

(vii.)  It  was  superior  because  the  Levitic  Priests  were 
necessarily  many,  requiring  to  be  constantly^eplenished  to 
fill  up  the  ravages  made  in  their  ranks  by  death  ;  but  His 
Priesthood,  because  of  His  Eternal  permanence,  is  intrans- 
missible ;  whence,  also,  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost 
those  who  through  Him  approach  to  God,  seeing  that  He 
ever  livetli  to  intercede  for  them." 

Having  thus  in  seven  particulars  proved  how  far  superior 
was  the  Melchizedek  Priesthood  of  Christ  to  the  Levitic 
Priesthood,  and  having  incidentally  introduced  the  impor- 
tant truth  that  this  transference  of  Priesthood  involved  the 


gviments  which  he  is  endeavouring  to  enforce.  I  have  always  insisted  (see  Life  of  St.  Paul, 
ii.  601,  610)  on  the  necessity  of  making  the  fullest  allowance  for  the  change  of  style  which  may 
be  caused  by  the  different  moods,  or  circumstances,  or  objects  of  an  author  nt  different  ages 
of  his  life  ;  but  no  author  can  continuously  adopt  a  style  which  is  alien  to  the  characteristics 
of  his  own  temperament;  and  to  me  it  is  only  necessary  to  read  the  Kpistle  to  the  Hebrews 
side  by  side  with  any  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  feel  more  and  more  strongly  that  it  is  impossible 
that  the  two  should  have  emanated  from  the  same  mind. 

1  He  does  not  venture  on  the  strong  word  athetesis,  "  disannulment,"  till  he  has,  so  to 
speak,  prepared  his  way  for  it  by  the  much  milder  word  "metathesis" — "  transference,"  or 
"alteration,"  in  ver.  12. 

2  vii.  11-19.  The  E.  V.  in  the  latter  verse  follows  a  bad  punctuation  of  the  Greek.  The 
word  eTreio-a-yto-yrj  is  not  the  nominative  of  eTeAeiwaef,  but  of  YcVerai — "  there  takes  place  a 
cancelling  of  the  previous  commandment  and  a  superinduction  of  a  better  hope." 

3  The  writer  uses  the  sounding  word  6p/cw/i*oo'ta  as  being  statelier  and  more  impressive  than 
opjco?. 

•*  The  E.  V.  here  renders  Sia^jjAcrj  by  "testament."  Now  BiaOi^Kr)  is  the  Greek  equivalent 
oi'"''  berttk"  as  in  Haal'Herith  ("  the  I.ord  of  the  Covenant")  in  Judg.  ix.  4  ;  and  bir'itk  is 
rendered  by  the  LXX.  5ia0^»c7j,  and  by  our  version  "covenant,"  at  least  200  times.  In  fact, 
in  the  Old  Testament  the  word  <r^?«  have  no  other  meaning,  for  the  Romans  invented  the 
"will,"  and  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  testamentary  bequests.  It  is  certain,  then,  that  any 
Jew  reading  this  passage,  and  familiar  with  the  LXX.,  would  take  the  word  to  mean  "cov- 
enant," and  not  "testament."  The  Vulgate  uses  " testamentum."  because  in  Classic  Greek 
hia.Qi\K-f\  often  has  this  meaning  ;  but,  as  Dr.  Moulton  remarks,  it  seems  clear  from  such  pas- 
sages as  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  5  that  St.  Jerome  used  it  in  a  wider  sense  than  that  of  "will."  It  is  from 
the  influence  of  the  Vulgate  that  we  get  our  phrase  "  the  Old  and  New  Testaments."  'Ihere 
is  happily  nothing  misleading  or  erroneous  in  the  term,  but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Si. 
Paul,  from  the  translation  of  whose  expression  the  term  is  derived  (2  Cor.  iii.  6),  meant  '"Old 
Co7>eMant,"  and  not  "Old  Testament."  What  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  in  ix.  15-17  we 
shall  see  in  the  notes  to  that  passage. 

6  vii.  20,  21.  As  Eternal  Priest,  he  is  a  pledge  (Ecclus.  xxix.  15)  of  the  validity  of  the 
New  Covenant  (ver.  25  ;  see  viii.  i), 

8  vii.  22-25.  Comp.  Is.  lix.  16,  and  a  passage  in  Philo  on  the  mediation  of  the  "Eldest 
Word"  {(Juis.  rer.  <lii>  haer.     0/>/>-  i.  501,  etl.  Mangey). 


262  THE   KARLV    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

abrogation  not  only  of  Levitism,  but  of  the  whole  Mosaic  sys- 
tem, he  adds  a  weighty  summary  of  all  that  he  has  said  about 
Melchizedek  as  a  Type  of  Christ,  into  which,  in  his  usual 
skilful  manner,  he  introduces  the  vein  of  thought  which  he 
proceeds  to  develop  in  the  three  following  chapters: — 

"  For."  he  says— and  this  ''for"  clinches  the  whole  argument  by  showing 
the  moral  fitness  which  there  was  for  the  disannulment  of  the  old  imperfect 
Priesthood,  and  the  introduction  of  a  better  hope—"  for  such  a  high  priest 
even  became  us— holy.'  harmless. 2  undefiled.^  separated  from  sinners,*  and 
made  loftier  than  the  heavens ;  who  hath  not  daily  necessity. ^  even  as  those 
high  priests  have,  first  on  behalf  of  his  own  sins  to  offer  sacrifices,  then  on  be- 
half of  the  sins  of  the  people  :  for  this  he  did  once  for  all  in  offering  up  himself. 
For  the  law  appoints  human  beings  who  have  infirmity  as  high  priests  ;  but  the 
utterance  of  the  oath,  which  was  after  the  law,  appoints  a  Son,  perfected^  for 
evermore"  (vii.  2^-28). 

SECTION    V. 

THE    DAY    OF   ATONEMENT. 

It  is  evident  that  in  this  passage  the  thoughts  of  the  writer 
are  passing  from  Melchizedek  to  the  Levitic  High  Priest  in 
his  grandest  function  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.  The  ideal 
of  his  whole  position  on  that  day  was  that  he  should  be  free 
from  every  ceremonial  pollution  as  a  type  of  his  freedom  from 
every  stain  of  sin  and  wrong.  In  order  to  represent  as  fully 
as  possible  this  ideal  cleanness,  he  had  to  be  accompanied, 
and  kept  awake  all  the  previous  night,  and  had  on  the  day 

*  Ps.  xvi.  10;  Acts  ii.  27;  T^6n— '"holy"  as  regards  God. 

*  Blameless  as  regards  man.  ^  Comp.  ix.  4  ;  i  Pet.  i.  19  :  Lev.  xxi.  17. 

*  The  High  Priest  was  in  a  genera!  sense  "  separated  "  (Lev.  x.  10 ;  xxii.  2  ;  i  Chr.  xxiii, 
\\  :  Jos.  Antt,  iii.  12,  §  2),  but  he  was  more  specially  separated  for  the  week  before  the  Day 
of  Atonement  (Yoma,  f.  2,  a). 

'  If  this  is  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  High  Priest  offered  sacrifices  daily,  the  ex-pression 
taken  literally  is  inaccurate  ;  for,  normally,  the  High  Priest  only  offered  sacrifices  once  a  year, 
as  die  writer  seems  to  have  been  well  aware  (ix.  25  :  x.  i,  3).  Various  ways  have  been  sug- 
gested for  meeting  the  difficulty;  e.g.,  (a)  that  "daily"  means  "on  one  fixed  day  every 
year  ; "  or  (3)  "often,"  since  it  appears  that  the  High  Priest  might,  if  he  chose,  offer  sacri- 
fices on  other  occasions  (Lev.  vi.  19-22  ;  Jos.  B.  J.  v.  5,  §  7),  or  might  be  represented  by  one 
of  his  vjos  ;  or  that  the  expression  is,  as  Hcngel  .says,  '•  indignabunda  hyperbole."  But  if  the 
expression  refers  cither  to  the  daily  ;«<rrt ^-offerings— the  "  .l/z«c/irt  "— (Ex.  xxix.  38-42  ;  Lev. 
vi.  13-16.  20  ;  Kccles.  xlv.  11),  or  to  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifices  in  which  he  might,  if 
he  chose,  take  part,  there  can  Ijc  no  question  that  these,  so  far  as  we  can  find  any  traces  in 
the  ll.;iw  had  nothmg  to  do  with  the  expiation  of  sins.  On  the  other  hand,  the  High  Priest 
mi;ht,  if  he  chose,  offer  the  daily  incense,  which  was  regarded  as  pardy  expiatory  (Lev.  xvi. 
11,  12).  "Wc  are  taught,"  says  the  Talmud,  "  that  incense  atones"  (Num.  xvi.  47).  the 
ulent  smoke  atonmg  for  slanders  spoken  in  a  whisper  (Yoma,  f  44,  a).  Some,  again,  have 
».ipp<.^d  that  It  was  a  custom  for  the  High  Priest  to  take  part  in  daily  expiatory'  sacrifices  in 

'   "   ' '"    'On'«s  at    Lcontopolis,  in    Lower   Egypt,  and  that  the  writer  is  thinking  of  this 

I  ijccturc  of  the  most  baseless  kind.    It  is  certam  that  Philo  uses  the  same  expres- 

1  T  he  speaks  of  the  High  Priests  "offering  on  each  day  prayers  and  sacrifices" 

■     ^   23  ;   see,  too.  in   the  Talmud,  Chagigah,  ii.  4  ;   Pesachiin,  f   57.  ^)-     It 

■  iibtcd  whether  there  is  any  inaccuracy  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  for  he 

"  Christ  had  no  need  to  offer  s.acrifices  for  daily  sln.s,  as  the  High  Priests 

J...,.  ,. ...  ,,,  ^^.,.  I,,  offer  a  sairifice  for  the  sins  which  they  daily  committed." 

Ver.  5,  6.  9  ;  li.  10;  Pss.  ii..  ex.  The  rendering  "  consecrated  "  (in  our  ver.-ion)  is  taken 
Trom  Lev.  xxi.  10  ;   Kx.  xxix.  9,  but  is  much  less  appropriate. 


THE    KPISILK    TO    THE    IIEIJREWS.  263 

itself  to  submit  to  five  washings  and  ten  purifications,  'i'he 
Day  of  Atonement  was  so  memorable  in  its  symbolism — it 
stirred  so  intensely  the  hopes  or  fears  of  the  people — it  was 
supposed  to  be  attended  by  so  many  supernatural  omens,  on 
the  presence  or  absence  of  which  the  whole  welfare  of  the  people 
depended  during  the  ensuing  year — the  anxiety  caused  by  any 
accident  which  impaired  the  due  ceremonies  was  so  extreme 
— that  the  Jews  regarded  no  precaution  as  extravagant  which 
could  ensure  the  due  performance  of  the  requisite  ceremonial. 
It  was  a  shock  to  the  feelings  of  the  whole  nation  when,  on 
one  occasion,  the  High  Priest  Ishmael  Ben  Phabi  had  been 
incapacitated  from  his  functions  because,  in  spite  of  all  the 
long  and  elaborate  endeavours  to  make  his  legal  cleanliness 
complete,  he  had  after  all  become  ceremonially  unclean,  and 
had  been  compelled  to  depute  his  Sagan  to  perform  the  most 
memorable  of  his  yearly  duties.  In  this  instance  the  pollution 
had  arisen  because  he  had  been  conversing  with  the  Arab 
ethnarch  Hareth  (Aretas),  and  a  speck  of  the  Emir's  saliva 
had  touched  the  High  Priest's  beard.  It  was  impossible, 
therefore,  by  any  amount  of  lustrations  or  isolation  to  secure 
so  small  a  matter  as  the  ceremonial  cleanness  of  the  High 
Priest  for  even  one  day  in  all  the  year;  but  Jesus  was  morally, 
in  inmost  reality,  and  for  all  eternity,  that  which  the  human 
Priest  could  mot  be  even  ceremonially,  even  in  semblance, 
even  for  a  single  day — the  sinless  offerer  of  one  all-sufficient 
offering  for  the  sins  of  all  the  world. 

Having  exhausted  the  comparison  of  the  Priesthood  of 
Christ  with  that  of  the  Levites,  the  writer  proceeds  to  a  com- 
parison of  their  respective  ministrations,  which  continues  to 
chap.  X.  18. 

"  But  the  chief  point  in  all  we  are  saying  is  this  :  1  Such  is  the  High  Priest 
whom  we  have,  who  sat  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens, 2  a 
minister  of  the  sanctuary  •'*  and  of  the  genuine  tabernacle  '  which  the  Lord 
pitched,  not  man.  For  every  High  Priest  is  appointed  to  offer  both  gifts  and 
sacrifices  ;  whence  it  is  necessary  that  this  High  Priest  also  have  something 
which  he  may  offer.''     Now,  if  he  were  upon  earth,  he  would  not  be  a  priest  at 

1  The  context  shows  that  Kf^^aXaxov  here  cannot  mean  "  summary,"  for  it  is  by  no  means 
a  summary,  and  it  also  adds  fresh  particulars.  The  word  is  here  used  in  its  proper  classical 
sense  of '^ chief  point "  (Thuc.  iv.  50:  vi.  16).  Dr.  Field  would  render  it,  "Now  to  croion 
{or  sum  u/>)  our  present  discourse"  [Oiium  Nor^ncense.  iii.  141). 

2  On  this  sonorous  amplification  see  ante^  p.  260,  «.  The  eKaOiaev  seems  to  be  a  mark  of 
emphatic  pre-eminence  (comp.  x.  11,  12). 

2  This  is  probably  the  meaning  of  twj'  ayi<av  here  as  elsewhere  in  this  Epistle  (ix.  8,  12, 
etc.;  X.  19  ;   xiii.  11),  and  not  "  of  the  saints  "  ((Ecumenius)  or  "  of  holy  things." 

•*  The  ideal  Archetypal  (iATjSii'ds)  Tabernacle  is  not  only  real  (aA,Tj9»)s),  bu:  the  perfected 
reality  of  its  material  counterpart  (comp.  ix.  24  ;  x.  22  ;  John  i.  9).  •  To  see  in  this  Jabcrna- 
cle  "  the  glorified  body  of  Christ "'  is  to  give  it  here  too  special  a  meaning. 

°  Namely  the  Blood  of  His  own  finished  s.acrifice  (ix.  14). 


264  THE   KARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

all. »  since  there  are  priests  already  who  offer  the  gifts  according  to  the  law^— 
the  priests  who  serve  an  outline  and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things  ;  even  as 
Moses  when  about  to  complete  the  tabernacle  has  been  Divinely  admonished  3 
—for  See.  he  says,  that  thou  make  all  things  ■»  according  to  the  pattern  5  shown 
thee  in  the  mount.  But  now  he  has  obtained  a  better  ministration  in  propor- 
tion«  as  he  is  also  a  mediator'  of  a  better  covenant — one  which  has  been  con- 
stituted upon  better  promises.^  For  had  that  first  covenant  been  faultless, *♦  no 
place  would  have  heen  sought  for  a  second  "  (viii.  1—7). 

But — as  he  goes  on  to  argue — place  has  been  sought  for  a 
second,  and  this  is  sufficiently  demonstrated  b)^  the  passage  of 
the  Prophet  Jeremiah'"  in  which,  by  way  of  blame''  to  his  coun- 
trymen, he  says,  that  the  days  should  come  when  Jehovah 
would  accomplish'^  for  Israel  and  Judah  a  New  Covenant,  un- 
like the  one  which  he  made  for  their  fathers  in  the  day  when 
He  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  forth  from  Egypt — 
and  that  because  they  did  not  abide  in  His  Covenant,  there- 
fore He  rejected  them.'^  But  in  the  coming  days  the  covenant 
which  He  would  make  would  be  marked  by  three  great  bless- 
ings, which  were  but  partially  understood  by  a  few  of  the  most 
enlightened  under  the  Old  Covenant — namely,  the  writing  of 
the  Law  not  on  granite  slabs,  but  on  their  hearts;  '*  the  im- 

'  Not  even  a  Priest,  much  less  a  High  Priest. 

2  'I'he  present  tenses,  here  as  elsewhere,  seem  to  show  decisively  that  the  Epistle  was  writ- 
ten lx:forc  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

3  KexpiJMaTMrTai.  The  use  of  the  perfect  is  due  to  the  writer's  mode  of  regarding  eveiy- 
thing  which  has  been  said  in  the  Bible  as  a  present  actuality  (iv.  9,  etc.).  For  the  meaning 
of  the  word  itself  see  Lk.  ii.  26  ;  Acts  x.  22  ;  RIatt.  ii.  12,  22. 

*  Ex.  XXV.  40.  In  the  Hebrew  and  LXX.  it  is  simply  "  make  //,"  not  "  all  things ;  "  but 
this  remarkable  variation  is  due  to  Philo  (/?<?  Leg.  Allej^g.  iii.  33). 

'  It  seems  to  be  a  very  idle  enquiry  whether  this  pattern  was  something  real,  or  only  an 
idea,  so  that  the  Tabernacle  was  "a  shadow  of  a  shadow,"  or  only  a  vision.  These  are  ques- 
tions which  would  not  so  much  as  occur  either  to  Moses  or  to  the  writer,  and  are  in  any  case 
otiose  because  incapable  of  being  decided.  The  notion  that  there  is  in  Heaven  a  real  Taber- 
n.-icle  of  which  thai  erected  by  Moses  was  an  exact  counterpart — "  a  fiery  ark,  and  a  fiery  can- 
dlestick, and  a  fiery  table,"  which  descended  from  Heaven  for  Moses  to  see — is  mere  Rabbinic 
letter-worship  and  superstition,  founded  on  an  abuse  of  the  most  ordinary  principles  of  human 
Uneuni;e. 

*  This  method  of  stating  results  by  proportions  is  found  in  other  passages  of  this  Epistle 
(1.  4 ;  iii.  3  :  vii.  22). 

^  A  mediator  between  God  and  man,  as  the  Introducer  of  the  New  Covenant.  Philo  ap- 
phcs  the  sanic  term  to  Moses  (comp.  Gal.  iii.  19,  20:  i  Tim.  ii.  5). 

•"  I>>'ttcr  proinises,  because,  as  Thcodorct  says,  the  promises  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation— 
a  land  flovvmg  with  milk  and  honey,  multitudes  of  children,  etc.— were  mostly  temporal,  but 
the  new  dispensation  promised  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  and  Eternal  Life. 

*  Whereas  it  ivai  "  weak  and  unprofitable"  (vii.  18). 

1"  -^u*^'  f  "-i*  ■''"■^?  (comp.  Ezck.  xxxvi.  25-27).     It  forms,  says  Delitzsch,  "  the  third  part 
of  the  third  trilogy  of  the  three  great  trilogies  into  which  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  maybe 
1 1 -i-L       I  •     '■'^f'^rcncc  evidcndy  is  to  the  days  of  the  Messiah. 
'»  Ihc  object  of  fi«M0oM««'O5  IS  not  expressed,  but  probably  it  is  aiiTOis.     Comp.  2  Mace. 

"  <rvi^cArfa«  is  used  for  the  less  emphatic  5ia0»jaoMai  of  the  LXX.,  as  a  rendering  of  the 
Hebrew  phrase,  "  to  cut  a  covenant"  (iT^na  nib). 

,  !V"  °"''..'''-  V:  it  stands  (Jer.  xxxi.  32),  "  although  I  was  a  husband  to  them"  (lit.  "a 
lord,  as  in  H<.s.  11.  16;  comp.  Jer.  iii.  14  ;  Is.  Ixii.  4).  lUit  the  quotation  is  from  the  LXX., 
which  either  follows  a  different  reading  (^nV»A),  or  takes  another  meaning  of  the  verb  ^nVya, 
which  i*  perhaps  tenable,  as  Kimchi  asserts. 

*/  ^'"•,^V;  *''^'^"  ^^?  Rabbis,  in  their  moments  of  saner  exegesis,  anticipated  a  day  when 
the  I.aw  »hould  cease  to  be.     1  his  they  inferred  from  Deut.  xxxi.  21.  R.  Bechai,  on  this  verse. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  265 

mediate  knowledge  of  God  by  all  without  human  intervention; 
and  the  final  pardon  of  sins.  Such  was  to  be  the  New  Cove- 
nant which  God  promised.  The  fact  that  He  called  it  "new" 
was  a  making  the  existing  dispensation  old,'  and  the  fact  of 
its  being  thus  regarded  as  "old"  showed  that  it  was  hastening 
to  final  decay — that  the  decree  of  dissolution  had  been  passed 
upon  it. 

After  this  digression  the  writer  resumes  the  subject  on 
which  he  had  touched  in  viii.  6 — the  superiority  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  ministration  in  the  New  (Covenant  over  those  which 
had  been  appointed  in  the  Old.  He  wishes  to  prove,  above 
all,  the  transcendent  efficacy  of  Christ's  high-priestly  atone- 
ment as  compared  even  with  the  most  solemn  sacrifices  and 
the  most  sublime  ceremonial  of  Jewish  worship.  To  this  he 
hastens  as  to  the  very  heart  of  his  subject,  not  pausing  to  ex- 
plain any  minor  details  of  the  Jewish  sanctuary  and  its  service, 
though  these  had  a  deep  interest  for  him,  and  he  would  have 
been  as  admirably  fitted  as  Philo  himself  to  bring  out  the  al- 
legoric meaning  of  every  shadowy  type  of  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation. This,  however,  would  have  been  impossible  in  a  letter, 
and  would  have  dissipated  the  attention  of  his  readers,  which 
he  wished  to  concentrate  on  one  central  consideration.  If  he 
could  but  convince  them  that  "Christ  was  the  end  of  the 
Law" — that  by  His  sacrifice  all  other  sacrifices  had  been  ren- 
dered needless — that  His  resurrection  and  ascension  robbed 
of  all  its  meaning  the  splendid  ceremonial  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, which  was  the  crowning  event  of  the  Jewish  year — then  it 
would  be  impossible  for  them  to  relapse  into  Judaism  out  of  any 
admiration  for  the  ordinary  routine  of  its  liturgical  appliances. 

"  To  resume,  then,  even  the  first  (covenant)^  had  its  ordinances  of  public 
worship, 3  and  its  sanctuary — a  worldly  one.'  For  a  tabernacle  was  established; 
the  outer  one,  in  which  is  ^  the  lamp-stand,"  and  the  table,  and  the  setting  forth 

argues  that  the  Law  "  shall  be  forgotten"  when  "  the  evil  impulse"  (the  yetzer  ha-ra)CG3iS^^ 
to  exist.  ^  This  is  the  same  argument  as  in  vii.  ii,  etc. 

-  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  " Covenant "_(6iae»j«Tj)  and  not  "Tabernacle" 
(o-KTji/ij),  as  in  our  text,  is  the  proper  word  to  supply  with  17  Trpci-nj.  It  is  true  that  ctkiji/i)  is 
read  by  the  Coptic  Version  and  one  or  two  cursive  MSS.,  probably  from  the  mistaken  supposi- 
tion that  TrpwTTj  means  "  first,"  and  not  "outer,"  in  ver.  8.  Hut  the  author  has  been  thinking 
all  along  of  two  Covenants,  and  not  of  two  Tabernacles,  and  the  Heavenly  Tabernacle  as  m 
no  sense  a  second  Tabernacle,  but  the  first  in  order  as  in  pre-eminence. 

^  ix.  I  ;  Leitourgia  ;  hence  our  "liturgy."  The  classic  meaning  of  the  word  was  a  public 
service  rendered  to  the  State. 

*  KotrfJUKov — i.e.,  "visible,"  "material."  "temporary,"  in  contrast  to  the  one  which  w.is 
not  of  this  world.  The  notion  of  Schottgen  and  Bp.  Middleton  that  Kosmikon  is  a  Rabbmic 
expression  for  "  furniture "  is  mistaken.  _  ,    , 

s  I  supply  "is,"  and  not  "was,"  because  the  writer  uses  the  present  (A.e'ye'''*'.  ettriatriv, 
etc.),  in  accordance  with  the  vivid  presentment  to  his  imagination  of  everything  mentioned  m 
Scripture,  as  though  it  were  eternally  existent.     See  on  vii.  6-8,  etc. 

8  Ex.  x.xv.  31-37.  The  writer  is  thinking  throughout  of  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle,  not  of  the 
Temples  of  Solomon  or  Herod.  In  Solomon's  Temple  there  were  ten  lampstiinds  (i  K.uii;s  vn. 
49).     In  the  second  Temple  there  was  only  one  (i  Mace.  i.  21  ;  iv.  49  ;  Jos.  Afitt.  xii.  7,  S  0,. 


266  THE   KAKLV    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  th*«  shewbrcad '—which  is  called  the  holy  place.*  But  behind  the  second 
'     •  ;he  tabernacle  which  is  called  the  Holy  of  Holies, *  having  a  golden 

Md  the  ark  of  the  covenant  overlaid  on  all  sides  with  gold,  in  which 
1  I-,  not  holding  the  manna,  and  the  rod  of  Aaron  which  budded,  and 

liic  ia;,]c5  of  the  covenant ;  and  above  it  the  cherubim  of  glory  overshadowing 
the  propitiatory,  respecting  which  things  I  cannot  now  speak  generally  " 
(ix.  1-5). 

We  must  follow  the  example  of  the  writer  in  not  being 
tempted  to  linj^^er  over  the  facts  upon  which  he  here  slightly 
touches.  Doubtless,  had  he  been  able  to  expand  the  symbol- 
ism of  the  Tabernacle  he  would  have  elucidated  points  which 
are  still  dark  to  us.  We  are,  however,  able  to  see  something 
<)(  the  meaning  of  the  Holiest  Place,  with  the  few  things  which 
it  contained.  It  was  always  shrouded  in  darkness,  except  for 
the  moment  when  the  High  Priest  lifted  the  cutain  to  enter 
its  awful  precincts.  No  wnndow  or  opening  of  any  kind  ad- 
mitted into  it  a  single  ray  of  light,  and  the  interior  was  only 
visible  to  the  High  Priest  in  the  crimson  gleam  of  the  thuri- 
l)Ie  from  which  rose  the  clouds  of  fragrant  incense.  But  in 
tile  Ark,  containing  the  granite  slabs  on  which  were  carved  the 
'ittn  \\'(;rds  of  Sinai — with  the  Propitiatory  above  it''  and  the 
"Cherubim  of  glory"'  bending  over  it,  we  cannot  fail  to  recog- 
nise an  emblem  of  all  that  is  highest  and  best  in  Creation  up- 
holding the  throne  of  the  Eternal,  and  rapt  in  adoring  con- 

•  The  tabic  has  no  importance  except  for  theshewbread,  or  '•  Bread  of  the  Face"  (of  God), 
n.-r.dercd  by  the  LXX.  *'  Ixiaves  of  the  setting  forth  "  (see  Gen.  xxv.  23-30  ;  Lev.  xxiv  5-9). 
■J'hcrc  were  ten  of  these  acacia-wood  tables  overlaid  with  gold  in  Solomon's  Temple  (2  Chr.  iv. 
8.  19). 

'^  Probably  ayia,  '*  Holy  (places),"  neut  pi.  ;  not  oyi'o,  fern,  sing.  He  uses  the  generic 
name. 

»  The  curtain  calicd  Parbketh  hung  between  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Holiest  (Ex.  xxvi. 

;,i-35)  :  the  other  curuin,  called  Masak  (Ex.  xxvi.  36,  37),  hung  before  the  Tabernacle  door. 

I  he  LXX.  in  some  places  call  both  these  curtains  /laTajreVacr/uia,  and  in  other  passages  use 

KokviULo.  or  (rrio-jraorpoi'  for  the  outer  one.     Philo  also  in  one  place  {Vit.  Mas.  iii.  9)  calls  the 

■t.-r  (,n..-  »cciAvfi>i«.     'Jhc   Rabbis  often  speak  of  tivo  curtains  between  the  Holy  and  the 

1  I  Place,  with  a  sort  of  lobby— a  space  of  a  cubit's  breadth— between  them,  called  the 

"J;     ^  '"^  derivation  of  the  word  is  much  disputed.     Some  connect  it  with  the  GreeJ^ 

.  "confusion,"  because  the  builders  were  "confused"  as  to  whether  it  belonged  to  the 

I '        I  l.ice  or  the  Holiest ;  and  there  are  other  conjectures  equally  improbable.     The  fact  it- 

•  :  rii.>rc  lh.in  doubtful.  As  to  the  Parbketh,  or  Inner  Veil,  the  Rabbis  said  that  it  was  a 
I   .1.  1  .  rcadth  thick,  woven  of  72  cords  each  24  strands  thick;  that  it  was  40  cubits  long,  and 

■  \,      ■   *'.''•  "  '""^  3^  priests  to  draw  it,  etc.  (ChuUin,  f.  90,  b). 

A-yta  ayiwK,  like  the  Latin  Sancta  Sanctorum,  is  a  literal  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  Ko- 
^'th  hnk  Ki-iiuihtm,  for  which  one  version  uses  "Most  Holy,"  or  "the  Holy  Place."     la 
I's  I  cmpic  It  was  called  "the  Oracle." 

///Art.     I  use  this  word  in  order  not  to  prejudice  the  question  as  to  whether  it  means 
■  or  Altar  of  Incense. 

;  iAa<rTijptoi',  "propitiatory,"  is  a  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  cappbreth,  which 

'  Tin?.        \\  \s  translated   ''mercy-seat'    in  our  version  from  the  notion  that  it- 

-niij;  of  Sim,  and   the  LXX.  selected  the  word  iAacrT^piov.  or  eniOenoL,  to  rep- 

>n  it  was  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  propitiatory  offering. 

means  much  more   than  "glorious  Cherubim."     It  no  doubt  means  the 

1  on  iheir  wings  the  (Hory  of  God,  the  Shechiiiah  or  Cloud  of  Light  which 

■■I  ills  Trcscncc  (Hag.  ii.  7-9;  Meuschen,  p.  701).     Even  the  Jews  spoke  of 

K/ckic  which  describes  the  Cherubim  as  "  tlie  chariot,"  and  it  was  a  favourite 

;  the  Kabbali.sts.  .  . 


THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  267 

templation  of  that  Moral  Law  which  is  the  revelation  of  His 
will. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  what  the  writer 
says  of  the  furniture  of  the  Temple  is  applicable  primarily  to 
the  Tabernacle,  and,  only  in  a  lower  degree,  to  the  Temple  of 
Solomon.  As  an  Alexandrian,  he  had  no  personal  knowled.s^e 
of  the  ritual,  but  derived  his  views  from  the  Pentateuch.  To 
the  Herodian  Temple  of  his  own  day,  and  even  to  the  Temple 
of  Zerubbabel,  his  description  is  not  applicable.  In  the  Holi- 
est Place  of  the  later  Temple  there  was  nothing.^  The  Ark 
had  disappeared  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity. 
When  Pompey,  nearly  a  hundred  years  before,  had,  to  the 
horror  of  the  Jews,  profanely  forced  his  way  into  the  inmost 
shrine,  he  had  been  amazed  to  find  that  there  was  nothing 
whatever — vacua  omnia!  The  mass  of  native  rock  on  which 
the  Ark  had  once  stood — called  by  the  Rabbis  "the  stone  of 
the  foundation," — alone  was  Visible.  The  absence  of  every- 
thing else  perhaps  originated  the  notion  that  the  Jews  wor- 
shipped "nothing  except  clouds  and  the  Deity  of  Sky,"  just 
as  the  living  creatures  which  formed  part  of  the  Cherubim 
may  have  helped  to  give  currency  to  the  old  ignorant  Pagan 
slander  that  they  worshipped  an  ass. 

Two  questions  are  raised  by  this  brief  glance  at  the  furni- 
ture of  the  Tabernacle,  which  we  are  bound  to  examine  be- 
cause they  affect  the  accuracy  of  the  Epistle,  and  have  been 
supposed  to  bear  on  the  question  of  its  authorship. 

I.  Of  these  the  minor  question  is,  Has  not  the  writer  fallen 
into  a  mistake  in  saying  that  the  Ark  contained  not  only  the 
Tables  of  the  Law,  but  also  the  golden  pot  of  manna, ""  and 
Aaron's  rod  that  budded?  Speaking  of  Solomon's  Temple, 
the  First  Book  of  Kings  (viii.  9}^  says  that  "there  was  nothing 
in  the  Ark  save  the  two  tables  of  stone,  which  Moses  put  there 
at  Horeb;"  and  in  Ex.  xxv.  16,  21;  xl.  20,  we  are  told  that 
he  put  "the  testimony"  into  the  Ark.  Neither  in  those  pas- 
sages, nor  in  Deut.  x.  2,  5,  are  we  told  that  he  put  anything 
besides."     But  in  Ex.  xvi.  t^t^,  34  Moses  is  bidden  to  lay  up  a 

'  Jos.  B.  y.  V.  5,  §  5  ;  e/ceiTO  Se  ouSei/  oAtos  iv  avToI. 

2  The  word  rendered  "pot"  is  trTa/u.i'os.  It  seems  to  mean  a  jar  with  a  tapering  base. 
The  Palestine  Targum  calls  it  "earthen,"  but  Jewish  tradition  always  spoke  of  it  as  made 
of  gold,  and  the  epithet  "golden"  is  added  by  the  LXX.  in  ICx.  xvi.  33,  as  also  by  Plulo. 
Perhaps  a  golden  pot  was  substituted  for  the  earthen  one  in  Solomon's  Temple.  It  contained 
one  "omer"  of  manna,  which  was  the  daily  portion  for  each  person  (Ex.  xvi.  16,  32). 

3  Comp.  2  Chr.  v.  10. 

*  The  Talmud  says  the  tables  of  stone  were  "  six  handbreadths  long,  six  broad,  and  three 
thick"  (Nedarim,  f.  38,  «),  and  they  weighed,  according  to  the  Targum  of  Palcstme.  ^oseahs. 
But  the  Talmudic  estimate  is  probably  very  excessive.  The  Talmud  says  farther  tli.ii  the 
broken  t.ibles,  as  well  as  the  new  ones,  wire  stored  up  in  the  Ark — which  Rashi  inferred  from 


268  THK   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

pot  of  manna,  and  in  Num.  xvii.  lo  to  lay  up  Aaron's  rod 
which  budded,  '' l>rfore  t\\Q  testimony"  and  '' before  \.\\q  Lord." 
Since  these  expressions  are  not  defined,  it  is  obvious  that  they 
mav  have  been  interpreted  to  mean  either  /;/  the  Ark  or  in 
front  of  it.  It  is  idle  to  contend  that  there  would  have  been 
no  room  for  them  inside  the  Ark  when  we  have  no  indication 
as  to  the  size  of  the  tables  of  stone.  In  these  small  matters 
much  was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  High  Priests.  The 
statement  of  the  Book  of  Kings  only  applies  to  Solomon's 
Temple,  and  since  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  is  not  thinking  of 
Solomon's  Temple,  but  only  of  the  Tabernacle,  he  may  be 
following  a  trustworthy  tradition  in  stating  that  these  memo- 
rials had  in  former  days  been  placed  inside  the  Ark.  They 
might  have  been  removed  when  the  Ark  was  hurried  from 
place  to  place  in  the  troublous  times  of  the  Judges — lest  the 
frailer  objects  should  have  been  broken  to  pieces  by  the  slabs 
of  stone.  Nothing  was  farther  from  the  intention  of  the 
Rabbis  than  the  desire  to  vindicate  the  accuracy  of  the  Chris- 
tian writer  who  directed  against  them  so  powerful  a  polemic; 
yet  Rabbi  Levi  Ben  Gershom,  Abarbanel,  and  others  testify 
to  the  existence  of  the  tradition  which  is  here  followed.* 
There  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  for  the  theory  of  Michaelis 
that  the  "///  which''  is  the  mistake  of  some  one  who  w^as  trans- 
lating the  Epistle  into  Greek  from  an  Aramaic  original.  There 
is  still  room  for  the  suggestion  of  Danzius  and  others,  sup- 
ported by  expressions  which  are  not  at  all  parallel,  that  '*/// 
which"  can  mean  ''together  %vith  which."  It  would  be  better 
to  acknowledge  a  difficulty  than  to  remove  it  by  such  desperate 
expedients.  In  this  case  there  is  no  difficulty.  In  the  Temple 
of  our  Lord's  day  there  was  no  Ark  at  all;'  in  the  Temple  of 
Solomon  the  manna-pot  and  the  ro'd  were  probably  placed  in 
front  of  the  Ark;  but  in  the  Tabernacle  of  the  Wilderness 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  these  objects  were  actually  inside 
the  Ark  as  the  writer  says. 

II.  But  it  is  asserted  that  he  made  a  mistake  in  saying 
that  the  ''thumiaterion''  was  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.    The  word 

I>cut.  X.  -2  fl'.crachoth,  f.  8,  *  ;  Kethuboth,  f.  104,  a)— and  nlso  the  Roll  of  the  Law,  written 

•y_  Mmscv    I...VJ  Hathra,  f.  14,  a).     As  to  the  disappearance  of  the  Ark,  they  say  that  Josiah 

:  •  "I  Ociit.  xxv.u.  36,  and  this  thoy  inferred  from  2  Chr.  xxxv.  3  (Yoma,  f.  52,  l>). 

.ation-stone  '  was  supposed  still  to  remain  3  i.iches  above  the  soil.     A  priest 

.litiin  ofthc  plaster,  conjectured  the  spot  in  the  wood-store  where  the  Ark  was 

imeili.itcly ;  and  once  when  a  priest  was  in  the  wood-store,  he  happened  to 


by  \I 

hi.! 
1: 

,  Mliti.in  ol  the  pl.-ister.  conjectured  the  spot  in  the  wood-store  where  the  Ark  was 

;  ,  ,  ii'meili.itcly  ;  and  once  when  a  priest  was  in  the  wood-store,  he  happene""  ^ 
...  i.  i!i^;  ti.n.pcr  on  the  spot  .-jbovc  where  it  was  hidden,  whereon  fire  sprang  forth  and  cu..- 
M.mccl  him.  1-hc  stone  on  w  uch  it  had  rested  was  believed  to  be  (like  the  omphalos  at 
I>clnh.)  the  centre  of  the  world  (sec  Hershon.  Talmudic  Miscrilany,  etc.). 
^c3iyxx^*CoHnlTPi^iT'i  '^'^'^  '""derwili  find  a  full  discussion  of  these  particulars  in  Pri- 
'  Voma,  V.  a  ;   Snrcnhu»iii«,  Mithiia,  ii.  2-.3. 


THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  269 

which  he  uses  is  rendered  "censer"  in  our  version.'  It  docs 
not  occur  ^  in  the  Greek  version  of  the  Pentateuch,  where  the 
"altar  of  incense"  is  called  rd  Ovo-LaaTr'jpLov  ^v/xta/xaros  (Ex. 
xxxi.  8;  Lk.  i.  11).  But  the  LXX.  use  it  in  2  Chron.  xxvi.  19; 
Ezek.  viii.  11,  and  in  both  of  these  places  it  means  "censer." 
The  Rabbis  assert  that  the  High  Priest  used  on  all  other  days 
a  silver  censer,  but  a  golden  one  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.^ 
On  the  other  hand,  in  Philo  and  Josephus  the  word  thumia- 
terion  means  the  "altar  of  incense,"  and  this  might  be  called 
"golden,"  though  in  reality  it  was  only  of  acacia-wood  over- 
laid with  gold.*  Considering  how  deeply  the  author  is  influ- 
/  enced  by  Philo,  and  also  that  in  the  Hellenistic  Greek  of  his 
day — from  Josephus  to  Clemens  of  Alexandria — the  word  is 
used  for  the  "altar  of  incense,"  it  is  most  probable  that  this 
is  here  the  meaning.  But  since  both  "censer"  and  "altar  of 
mcense"  are  closely  connected  with  the  ceremonies  of  the 
great  Day  ofAtonement,  of  which  the  writer  is  here  thinking, 
we  cannot  come  to  any  positive  decision  as  to  which  of  the 
two  he  meant. 

But  now  occurs  the  further  difficulty — Were  cither  of  these 
objects  in  the  Holiest  Place? 

a.  As  regards  the  censer^  if  that  be  the  meaning  here  in- 
tended, it  may  have  been  kept  in  the  Holiest,  and,  though  we 
cannot  corroborate  the  assertion  from  other  sources,  the  writer 
may  be  following  a  correct  Jewish  traditoin  in  saying  that  it 
was.  Or,  again,  the  name  may  have  been  given  to  some  per- 
manent golden  censer-stand  in  the  Holiest  Place  on  which  the 
High  Priest  placed  the  small  brazier  or  shovel-shaped  basin 
{machettah^  LXX.  pureion)  which  he  carried  with  him  when  he 
stood  before  the  Ark  on  the  Day  of  Atonement. 

/?.  As  regards  the  altar  of  incense^  if  we  assume  that  to  be 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  there  is  no  question  that  it  was  not 
in  the  Holiest.  No  tradition  ever  asserted,  or  could  have  as- 
serted, that  it  was.  If  the  writer  meant  that  it  was,  he  then 
made  a  mistake  which  even  in  an  Alexandrian  Jew  would  be 
almost  inconceivable,  and  as  to  which  Philo,  with  whose 
writings  he  was  so  familiar,  would  have  set  him  right. ^  But 
it  may  be  fairly  argued  that  he  did  not  mean  to  say  that  the 
incense-altar  was  inside  the  Holiest  Place.  If  he  did,  why 
does  he  go  out  of  his  way  to  vary  the  expression?     He  tells 

1  And  in  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  Arabic,  and   ^thiopic  :  and  the  word  is  so  understood  by 
Theophylact,  Anschn,  Thomas  Aquinas,  Grotius,  Wetstcin,  Bengel,  Roland,  Stier,  etc. 

2  Except  as  a  various  reading.  ^  Yonia,  iv.  4. 

*  In  Solomon's  Temple  it  was  of  cedar-wood.  '  Philo,  De  vict.  off.  §  4. 


2/0  THK    KARLV    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

us  that  the  manna-pot  and  the  rod  were  "///  the  Ark,"  but  he 
only  says  that  the  HoHest  Place  "'had''  the  thwiiaterion  and 
thcArk,  and  we  cannot  assert  that  the  change  of  phrase  is 
due  to  the  rhetorical  desire  for  variation.  The  phrase  "hav- 
ing" may  therefore  be  adopted  to  apply  not  only  to  the  Ark 
which  was  inside  the  Holiest,  but  also  to  the  altar  which, 
though  not  actually  inside,  was  close  outside  the  veil,  and  was 
intimately  associated  with  the  Holiest,  not  only  in  the  use  to 
which  it  was  put,  but  also  by  the  express  language  of  Scrip- 
ture. On  the  Day  of  Atonement,  when  the  Veil  was  drawn, 
tlie  altar  of  incense  might  be  said,  in  the  strictest  sense,  to 
bclojiir  to  the  Holiest  Place.  ^ 

o 


"Since  then  these  things  have  been  thus  arranged,  into  the  outer  taber- 
nacle the  priests  enter  continually  in  the  performance  of  their  ministrations  ;2 
but  into  the  inner,  once  in  a  ycar,^  the  High  Priest  alone,  not  without  blood, 
which  he  offers  on  his  own  behalf  and  for  the  ignorances^  of  the  people  :'^  the 
Holy  Spirit  signifying  this,  that  the  entrance  into  the  Holiest  had  not  yet  been 
manifested,  while  yet  the  outer  Tabernacle  stands'^ — which  outer  Tabernacle  is 
a  parable  for  the  present  time,  in  accordance  with  which  (parable)"  both  gifts 
and  sacrifices  are  offered,  such  as  are  not  able  as  far  as  conscience  is  concerned 
to  perfect  the  worshipper ;  «  seeing  that  they  consist  only  in  meats  and  drinks, 


'  See  Excursus  XI.  "The  Altar  of  Incense  and  the  Holiest  Place."  If  this  view  be  correct 
— and  certainly  it  cannot  be  disproved — the  exovcra  will  be  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  t,  in  the 
sense  of  "  belonging  to,"  in  i  Kings  vi.  22  ("  the  altar  which  was  T^^'V  to  the  Oracle  "). 

'  Num.  xviii.  7.  The  ordinary  priestly  duties  were  to  offer  sacrifice,  burn  incense,  and 
light  the  lamps.  No  priest  might  enter  the  Holiest,  except  the  Sagan,  and  then  only  in  most 
exceptional  circumstances  ;  but  the  High  Priest  might  perform  any  of  the  ordinary  functions 
if  ho  chose.  The  graduated  sanctity  of  the  rest  of  the  Tabernacle — which  gave  its  special  aw- 
fulncss  to  the  Holiest — was  remarkable.  In  the  Temple  all  might  enter  the  outmost  court  ; 
all  Jews  the  second  court ;  all  males  the  third  ;  priests  alone,  in  their  robes,  might  enter  the 
first  chamber;  the  High  Priest  alone,  in  his  robes,  might  enter  the  shrine  (Jos.  c.  Apion. 
ii.  8). 

'  Undoubtedly  the  High  Priest  must  actually  have  entered  into  the  Holiest  three  times 
(Ixv.  xvi.  12-16),  if  not  four  times  (Yoma,  v.  2  ;  vii.  2),  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  (the  loth 
of  Tishri)— viz.  (i)  with  the  incense:  (2)  with  the  blood  of  the  bullock  offered  for  his  own 
sins  ;  (3}  with  the  blood  of  (he  goat  offered  for  the  sins  of  the  people  ;  and  (4)  to  remove  the 
censor.  Hut  these  entrances  were  practically  only  one,  as  they  were  but  parts  of  one  grand 
ceremony.  There  was  no  need  of  pragmatic  accuracy  when  this  would  be  at  once  understood 
by  every  reader.  On  such  matters  t^c  ancients,  and  especially  Semitic  writers,  cared  much 
less  than  the  moderns  for  pedantic  exactness. 

♦No  doubt  ayvQi]y.a.Ta.  is  used  generally  to  include  sins  and  errors  of  all  kinds  (v.  2,  3; 
\ II.  37  :   I'.x.  xxxiv.  7). 

'  I  have  rendered  the  Greek  literally,  but  no  doubt  wirep  eavToO  means  "for  his  own  sins," 
..iid.  as  wc  knrn  from  Lev.  xvi.  6,  11,  for  those  of  his  house.     The  confession  of  the  High 

' ' ■''<-•  f"IK)wing  terms  :   "And  now,  O  Lord.  I  have  sinned,  and  done  iniqui- 

'  fore  Thee.     I  pray  therefore,  O  Lord,  cover  my  sins  and  iniquities  and 

'  I  liave  sinned,  offended,  and  trespassed  against  Thee  !  " 

^■M.   ,    .  >,.<iiiacle  was  the  place  of  the  priests  in  general,  who  might  not  penetrate 
•-.Mauds  '—the  present  is  used  in  accordance  witii  the  general  idiom  of  the  Epistle. 
'■'*.  P-  234.  «.     The  writer  throws  himself  vividly  into  the  past,  and  so  he  conceives 
■■•'-■  eonlcmplatfd  arr.ingeinents  as  still  existing, 

■  Ixrg.  KoB  i\v  :  A,  15,  1),  etc. 

"  The  "  parnblc."  or  typical  meaning,  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  service  is  this  :  The  object 
..t  ihc  Kifl^  .-»iid  Hacrificcs  is  to  (ibtain  entrance  into  Cod's  presence;  but  since  the  Holiest  is 
..•t  ..jHrncd  by  them,  the  result  is  not  obtained  :  which  shows  that  the  worshippers,  so  far  as 
ilicir  u»mo*l  hearts  arc  concerned,  are  not  perfected. 


THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  2/1 

and  divers  washings' — being  ordinances  of  the  flesh,  imposed  (only)  till  the 
season  of  reformation  "-  (i.x.  6 — lo). 

"But  Christ  having  appeared,  a  High  Priest  of  the  good  things  to  come,^ 
through  the  greater  and  more  perfect  Tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that 
is,  not  of  this  (visible)  creation  ;^  nor  even  by  means  of  llie  l^lood  of  bvills  and 
goats,  but  by  means  of  lli^own  blood,  entered  once  for  iUl  into  the  HoHcst 
Place,  obtaining  for  us  eternal  redemption. »  For  if  the  blood  of  goats  and 
bulls,*  and  the  "ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkhng  the  defded."  sanctifies  to  the  jHirity 
of  the  flesli,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  die  Christ."  who  through  an 
eternal  Spirit^  offered  Himself  without  blcniish'o  to  God,  purify  your  conscience 
from  dead  works"  to  serve  the  living  God  ?  "i-  (ix.  ii— 14.) 

"  And  on  this  account" — i.e.,  because  of  the  greatness  of  His  work — "  He 
is  a  mediator  of  a  r/eio  covenant,  that — when  death  had  occurred  for  the  re- 
demption of  the  transgressions  under  the  first  covenant — they  who  have  been 
called  may  receive  the  promise  of  the  eternal  inheritance.  For  where  there  is 
a  iestamciit  it  is  necessary  that  there  should  be  legally  involved  the  death  of  the 
testator.  For  a  testanwitt  is  of  force  in  the  case  of  the  deiid— since  is  tiiere  any 
validity  in  it  when  the  testator  lives  ?  "'^  ^ix.  15—17.) 

We  must  pause  for  a  moment  to  examine  the  meaning  of 
the  last  two  verses.  A  voluminous  controversy  has  arisen 
about  them,  because  we  seem  to  be  almost  compelled  to  alter 
the  translation  '' ccroenant,'"  which  throughout  the  Epistle  has 
been  the  only  tenable  rendering  of  diatheke,  and — in  these  two 

'  Meats  (Ex  xii.  ;  Lev.  xi.  ;  Num.  vi.) ;  drinks  (Lev.  x.  9;  Num.  vi.  3) ;  dh'ers  wash- 
ings (vi.  2  ;  Ex.  xix.  10,  ii  ;  xxix.  4  ;  Lev.  xv.  8;  xvii.  5;  xxiL  5).  See  on  both  classes  of 
observance  the  teaching  of  Chnst  (Mk.  vii.  1-15). 

'•^  ix.  6-10.  It  is  not  meant  that  the  system  of  sacrifices  was  useJess,  bitt  only  that  in  them- 
selves— and  ap>art  from  the  gr.iice  of  God  which  might  be  imparted  by  their  faithful  use — they 
cr)»ilJ  not  give  p>erfect  ease  and  peace,  or  gain  admission  for  the  worshipper  into  the  presence; 
of  God.  'I'here  is  probal)ly  a  slight  sense  of  painful  burden  in  the  wc«-d  i-mjceCtteva  (comp. 
Acts  XV.  10}.  The  "  reformation''  jSiop^cri?}  is  that  prophesied  by  Jei-einiah  (see  viii.  7-12). 
Various  other  ways  of  translating  this  c'ause  have  been  suggested,  but  the  CMie  which  1  have 
adopted  seems  to  me  so  much  the  nvire  correct  that  I  do  not  mention  others. 

3  In  B  and  U  we  have  the  reading  '"  good  things  that  have  come  "  {y€voixev(>>v}> 

■*  Comp.  viii.  2.  Kut  /iirre  it  seems  Wst,  with  Chrysostom  and  many  of  the  Fathers,  to  un- 
derstand this  I'abeniacle,  through  which  Christ  {xissed,  of  His  Human  Nature  (etx/ci^vioCTei', 
John  i.  14;  comp.  ii.  19;  xiv.  10;  Col.  ii.  9).  C^f  the  other  explanations  tlie  best  is  perhaps 
that  of  Bleek,  Dc  Wette,  Liinemann,  etc..  who  understand  it  of  "-the  lower  heavens"  (comp. 
iv.  .14).  Moll  renders  5ia  "by  means  of;  "  XTtats  may  mean  "  building,"  on  the  analog^'  of 
KTi^oi,  but  in  that  case  ravTry;  must  mean  "  vulgiU","  "ordinary'-" — r^uae  vitlgo  dicitur 
(Field.  Otium  Non  icense,  iii.  142). 

*  AuTpoKTii',  "ransom,"  with  its  cog^nate  wcai.Ts,  occurs  in  ver.  j$  and  xi.  35 ;  Matt.  xx.  28  : 
Lk.  xxi.  28  :  xxiv.  21  :  1  Tim.  ii.  5 :  Tit  ii.  14  ;  1  Pet.  1.  18.  The  metaphor  .applies  only  to 
the  effects  of  the  Redemption  as  regards  man,  whom  it  sets  free  from  the  bondage  of  sin. 
.So  little  is  the  notion  of  its  Divine  side  dwelt  upon,  that  it  is  never  said  to  whom  the  ransom 
is  paid,  and  for  many  centuries  the  Church  in  general  held  the  strange  and  grievous  notion  that 
it  was  paid  to  Satan.  *  Lev.  xvi. 

'  See  Num.  xix.  9  (comp.  xii.  24).  Thus,  in  this  verse  he  refers,  by  way  of  example,  to 
the  two  most  significant  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish  Law. 

f"  The  blood  of  Christ  was  the  true  fountain  opened  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness  (Zech. 
-\iii.  1). 

*  Probably  His  own  Spirit  is  intended — "  per  ardentissimarrt  cantatem  a  Spiritu  Ejus 
aeterno  proiectam"  ((Kcolamp.).  If  we  explain  it  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  must  refer,  by  way 
of  parallel,  to  such  passages  as  Matt.  xii.  28  :   Lk.  .xi.  20. 

*"  The  word  used  by  the  LXX.  for  sacrificial  victims  (comp.  1  Pet.  j.  19). 

^'  Comp.  vi.  1.  Here  the  e.vpressinn  has  possibly  a  sli.ght  reference  to  the  dead  things 
which  caused  pollution  imder  the  Levitical  I^aw.  'I'be  writer  does  not  here  attempt  to  ex/Imn 
the  mysten,'  of  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  blood,  which  is  indeed,  on  the  Di7'ine  side,  inexplicable  ; 
he  only  dwells  on  it  as  a  revealed  fact — in  its  effects  for  us. 

^2  ix.  11-14.     For  the  expression  "  living  (rod  "  see  Dent.  x.vv.  26. 

•3  ix.  15-17.     The  jULTjTroTe  is  most  simply  explained  by  regarding  the  clause  as  a  question. 


272  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

verses  only — to  substitute  for  it  the  rendering  testo.ment  or  will. 
'J'his  has  seemed  to  many  commentators  a  great  difficulty.  In 
the  i]uotation  from  Jeremiah  (xxxi.  31 — 34),  which  plays  so 
important  a  part  in  the  argument  of  the  Epistle,  SiaOrjKT] 
must  mean  "covenant,"  and  this  meaning  must  be  retained  in 
the  following  verses  even  as  far  as  verse  15.  It  may  well 
seem  extraordinary  that  in  the  very  next  verses  (16  and  17),  and 
these  alone,  the  different  sense — which  is  the  classical  sense 
of  the  word — should  be  introduced.  After  these  two  verses 
the  word  evidently  reverts  to  its  normal  sense.  For  the  Old 
Dispensation  alluded  to  in  verse  20  was  indeed  "a covenant," 
but  could  only  be  called  a  "testament"  by  a  remote  analogy. 
Yet,  if  on  these  grounds  we  resist  the  concession  of  a  new 
meaning  in  the  two  verses  before  us,  we  have  to  reconcile 
with  plain  facts  the  statement,  that  "when  there  is  a  covenant 
there  must  also  be  of  necessity  the  death  of  him  who  made 
it."  This  is  attempted  by  arguing  that  in  verse  15  the  death 
spoken  of  is  the  death  of  Jesus;  that  the  new  covenant  was 
"a  covenant  in  Christ's  blood"  (i  Cor.  xi.  25);  and  that  no 
covenant  could  be  established  without  the  death  of  sacrificial 
victims  (Gen.  xv.  9,  10;  Ps.  1.  5),  in  which  the  death  of  the 
covenanter  \s  imj)lied  (cfiipeaOai) ,'  either  as  2i punishment  if  he 
should  break  the  compact,  or  as  involving  a  total  change — a 
sort  of  death — as  regards  the  past  or  the  future.  We  should 
then  be  obliged  to  render  verse  17  by  "a  covenant  is  of  force 
m^er  dead  victims,"  and  to  regard  Jesus  as  both  the  mediator 
and  maker  of  the  covenant.  Thus  the  death  of  the  covenanter 
becomes  a  sort  of  ideal  conception — an  imaginative  realisa- 
tion of  the  supposed  significance  of  the  sacrifices  over  which 
the  compact  is  made. 

However  ingeniously  these  arguments  may  be  stated,  they 
attach  to  the  writer's  words  a  very  vague  and  unnatural  sense. 
I  see  no  alternative  but  to  suppose  that  the  writer  does  in  these 
two  verses  introduce  a  sort  of  side  light  from  the  classical 
meaning  of  the  word  diathcke,  which  he  has  elsewhere  been 
using  in  the  ordinary  Hellenistic  sense.''  These  two  verses  do 
not  belong  to  the  essence  of  his  argument.  He  is  comparing 
the  Old  with  the  New  Dispensation,  and  the  old  wtih  the  new 
Priesthr.nd.     In  the  Old  the  High  Priest  entered  the  Holiest 

«  Pcrhajis  the  word  m.-iv  be  rendered  "be  proved  or  established  "—r^«^/rtr^. 
How  completely  the  illustration  is  an  obiter  dictum  appears  from  this— (i)  that  he  does 
not  even  touch  up<ji.  the  fact  that  Christ  did  nut  merely  die,  but  died  a  violent  and  shameful 
and  agonising  death  ;  and  (2)  does  not  pause  to  co-ordinate  the  two  senses  ol  diath^k^,  or 
(3)  cxpl.-iin  the  very  disUnt  anidogy  between  the  necessity  of  a  de.Tth  when  there  is  a  "  will," 
and  the  (very  diUcrcnt)  sacrifice  of  victims  when  there  is  a  "  covenant." 


THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE   HEBREWS.  2/3 

with  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats;  in  the  New,  Christ,  as  our 
Redeemer,  passed  with  His  own  blood  into  the  immediate 
presence  of  God.  In  both  dispensations  there  was  a  purify- 
ing and  propitiatory  shedding  of  blood.  In  developing  this 
argument  the  writer  passingly  recalls  another  illustration.  The 
word  which  he  is  using  has  two  recognised  senses.^  A  dia- 
thcke  in  the  sense  of  a  "covenant"  involved  the  necessity  for 
the  death  of  sacrificial  victims;  a  diatheke  in  the  sense  of  a 
"will"  involved  the  necessity  for  the  death  of  the  testator; 
and  he  avails  himself  with  perfect  simplicity  of  this  second 
meaning.  To  call  this  a  Hellenistic  play  on  words,  or  a  speci- 
men of  sophistry,  or  a  proof  of  feeble  logic,  is  a  mistaken 
method  of  criticism.  The  writer  is  not  furnishing  'Awy proof 
of  the  necessity  for  Christ's  death.  If  he  were,  he  would  have 
had  to  prove  why  the  Christian  Dispensation  must  be  regarded 
as  a  diathekt'^  which  it  is  unnecessary  for  him  to  do.  He  is 
writing  to  those  who  have  already  accepted  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  whom,  therefore,  the  necessity  for  Christ's  death 
transcends  the  need  of  proof.  He  is  comparing  two  dispen- 
sations, of  which  his  readers  are  convinced  that  both  have 
come  from  God,  and  his  sole  object  is  to  prove  the  superiority 
of  the  latter.  By  the  double  sense  of  the  word  he  is  remind- 
ed, in  passing,  that  death  is  the  condition  of  inheritance  by 
testament^  just  as  death  is  the  efficient  cause  of  purification 
hj  covetiant.  "The  same  death  which  purifies  us  from  guilt 
makes  us  partakers  of  the  kingdom  of  glory;  the  same  blood 
which  cleanses  us  from  sin  seals  the  testament  of  our  inheri- 
tance." It  requires  but  a  slight  development  of  the  literary 
sense  to  see  that  if,  in  carrying  out  his  comparison,  he  could 
illustrate  it  by  a  momentary  reference  to  another  meaning  of 
the  word  with  which  he  is  dealing,  he  is  only  adopting  a 
method  which  might  be  used  by  any  writer,  whether  ancient 
or  modern.^ 

We  now  may  resume  the  thread  of  the  argument,  which  we 
will  here  translate,  because  of  the  extreme  importance  of  this 
section  of  the  Epistle. 


^  "^p"'r)''iT  [dnthikT]  in  the  Talmud  certainly  means  a  "will,"  and  is  said  also  to  be  used 
in  the  sense  oi  BerUh  (-'covenant").  It  Is  of  course  only  the  Greek  word  diatheke,  though 
R.  Obad.  de  Barteiiora  offers  an  astonishing  Hebrew  derivation  for  it  (see  McCaui,  ad  Coc). 
Originally  (Dent.  xxi.  i6)  the  Jews  knew  nothing  about  "  wills,"  but  they  learnt  the  use  ot 
them  from  the  Romans.  wc    a 

'^  Philo  similarly  alludes  to  the  two  senses  of  the  word  [De  Norn.  Mutat.%  6  . ,,  A"orci 
compares  the  term  "  New  Testament"  itself  as  bearing  two  meanings— a  "book,  and  a 
"will."  No  one  would  accuse  an  English  writer  of  sophistry  or  feeble  logic  if,  in  speaking 
of  the  Book,  he  introduced  a  passing  illustration  from  the  other  meaning  of  the  name  by  whicli 
the  Book  is  called. 


274  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

"  Whence  ' — i.e. ,  because  a  "  covenant  "  and  a  "testament  "  alike  involve 
the  idea  of  death  ;  a  coz'cnant  being  ratified  by  the  death  of  victims,  and  a  testa- 
ment involving  the  death  of  the  testator—"  not  even  the  first  covenant  has  been 
inaugurated'  apart  from  blood.  For  when  every  commandment  according  to 
the  Law  had  been  spoken  by  Moses  to  all  the  people,  taking  the  blood  of  the 
calves  and  the  goats,  with  water  and  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop,  he  sprinkled 
t.oth  the  book  itself  and  all  the  people,^  saying,  '  This  is  the  blood  of  the  Cove- 
:i\nt  which  God  (Heb.  Jehovah)  commanded  in  regard  to  you.'^  And  the 
labernacle,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministration,  did  he  likewise  so  sprinkle 
with  tlie  blood, *  and,  generally  speaking, =  all  things  are  purified  with  blood 
according  to  the  Law,  and  without  bloodshed «  remission  does  not  take  place. 
It  is  necessarv,  then,  tiiat  the  outlines  ^  of  the  things  in  the  heavens  be  purified 
with  these,  b'ut  the  heavenly  things  themselves <^  with  sacrifices  better  than 
these."  For  not  into  a  material  sanctuary  did  Christ  enter— a  (mere)  imitation 
of  the  Ideal  >» — but  into  the  Heaven  itself,  now  to  be  visibly  presented  before 
the  face  of  God  for  us.  Nor  yet  did  He  enter  Heaven  that  He  may  often  pre- 
sent Himself  there  as  the  High  Priest  enters  into  the  Holiest  year  by  year  with 
blood  not  his  own— since  it  would  then  have  been  needful  "  for  Him  often  to 
suffer  since  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  but  now,  once  for  all,  at  the  consum- 
mation of  the  ages  '-  has  He  been  manifested  "  for  the  annulment  of^n  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Himself.  And,  inasmuch  as  it  is  appointed  for  men  once  only  to  die, 
and,  after  this,  judgment, — so  also  the  Christ,  having  been  once  for  all  offered 


'  «yice(coti't«rTai — another  of  the  perfects  which,  with  the  presents,  are  so  characteristic  of 
the  writer.  He  regards  every  ordinance  of  Scripture  either  as  representing  a  permanent  fact, 
or  as  still  continuing  its  past  existence.  The  Alexandrian  word  e-yxcwi/t'^w  is  used  by  the  LKX. 
(Dcut.  XX.  5  ;  1  Kings  viii.  63),  and  means  to  "handsel."  Hence  the  name  "Encaenia,'"  for 
the  feast  of  the  "  Dedication  "  (John  x.  22). 

2  Ex.  xxiv.  3-7,  The  book  of  tiie  Covenant  was  Ex.  xx.  22  ;  xxili.  33.  See  in/fa,  p. 
275. 

3  Trpbs  ifjuas— /.4'.,  for  me  to  deliver  to  you.  In  the  LXX.  for  "  i/tts  is  the  blood,"  we  have 
the  more  literal  rendering,  "behold  (nUH)  the  blood."  Bohme  and  others  suppose  that  the 
variation  is  due  to  a  reminiscence  of  the  words  of  Christ  in  inaugurating  the  Last  Supper,  as 
recorded  in  Luke  xxii.  20.  Ihe  writer  substitutes  ■  commanded  '  (ei/€Tei\aTo)  for  the  hudtro 
of  the  LXX.    The  Hebrew  as  usual  has  '"cut"  (rnS). 

••  This  was  on  another  and  later  occasion,  not  recorded  in  Scripture,  but  implied  in  Ex. 

*  'I'here  were  a  few  e.xccptions  (sec  Ex.  xix.  10  ;  lycv.  v.  ii-i:?  ;  xv.  5  ;  xvi.  26,  28  ;  .x.xii. 
6  ;  Num.  xxxi.  22-24).     SxeSov  is  only  us«d  elsewhere  in  Acts  xiii.  44  ;  xix.  26. 

«  De  Wctte  and  others  render  aiju.areKxu<n'a,  "pouring  out  of  blood,"  at  the  foot  of  the 
altar  (Ex.  xxi.x.  16;  2  Kings  xvi.  15  :  2  Chron.  xxix.  22,  LXX.).  But  t\\<t  J>ou7'ing out  of  the 
blood  IS  secondary' ;  it  is  the  shedding  of  the  blood  which  is  of  chief  importance,  and  the 
mcannic  seems  to  Ik;  decided  by  Luke  .xxii.  20:  "This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my 
'-!'))d  which  is  being  shed  for  you"  ;  and   (Lev,  xvii.  11)  :    "  it  is  the  blood  that  m.iketh  an 

>ne:iiiMit  for  the  soul,"  whence  the  Rabbinic  rule:  "No  expiation  except  by  blood"— 
^^3  X'N  nnSD  V^  (Voma,  f.  5,  b).  The  famous  passages  of  the  Prophets  (Hos.  vi.  6; 
l-.i.  i.  10-17.  etc.;  arc  directed  not  against  the  use  of  sacrifices,  but  against  their  abuse. 

'  w7ro3«4yA«iTa  (iv.  11;  viii.  5).     1  hey  were  "copies"  (^M«7r/e'«),  not  " patterns "   [Ur- 

"  What  is  meant  by  "the  heavenly  things?"  The  notion  that  the  phrase  means  "the 
n  w  cov.-n.int  '  (Oirys.,  fEcumen.),  or  "the  church"  (Thcophyl.),  or  ourselves  as  heirs  of 
■•'-•ivcu  (Ihohick),  are  only  suggested  to  avoid  the  difhculty  .)f  supposing  that  heaven  can 
need  any  nunhc.ition.  Hut  the  best  proof  that  this  natural  meaning  is  the  true  one  may  be 
»ccn  in  Job  IV.  18,  "  His  angels  He  charged  with  folly." 

•  Ihc  plural  is  merely  ijcnerlc. 

'"  The  I <lc..l  is  that  which  is  .ictual  and  eternal :  the  uncr-  ated  archetype  as  contrasted  with 
the  h  ii..lfn:i.lc  antity|>c.  The  word  irriTUTfos  is  found  only  in  i  Pet.  iii.'2i.  The  better  sanc- 
tuary ,,  ^„„c  proof  that  there  was  a  better  sacrijhe.     It  is  an  argument  from  the  effect  to 


"  «i<i.     On  this  idiom,  see  Winer,  §  41. 
"  Cornp.  M.itt.  xiii.  39.  40,  49;  xxiv.  3  ; 


xxviii.  20. 


I     V  *'*'^**'^*'»''**i    '^"'"s  fmph,inisiins\9.  the  actual  vision  face  to  face  (Ex,  x.vxili.  13).    The 
I-.  V.  m.ikcs  no  diirercncc  between  i^a.vnBi)vax  (ver.  24),  itt^a-vioiarax  (ver.  26),  and  oAOn- 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  275 

to  bear  '  the  sins  of  many, 2  shall,  a  second  time,  apart  from  sin,^  appear,  to  those 
who  wait  for  Him,  for  salvation  "  '  (ix.  18—28). 

It  is  worth  while  to  notice,  in  passing,  the  famiharity  of 
the  writer  with  the  Jewish  Ha^rada  and  Halacha — that  is,  with 
the  unrecorded  circumstances  which  Jewish  tradition  added 
to  the  History  or  to  the  Ceremonial  Law  of  the  Sacred  Books. 
In  this  chapter  there  are  five  or  six  references  to  one  or  the 
other.  He  has  already  said  (i)  that  the  pot  of  manna  was  of 
gold,  and  (2)  that  it  aajj  the  rod  of  Aaron  were  in  the  Ark; 
and  (3)  that  there  wmki  close  connexion  between  the  altar  of 
incense  and  the  Holiest  Place.  In  these  latter  verses  he  men- 
tions (4)  that  Moses  purified  the  people  with  the  blood  of  the 
goats  (which  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  among  the  burnt- 
offerings  mentioned  in  Ex.  xxiv.  5);  (5)  that  the  sprinkling 
was  done  with  water,  scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop  (perhaps  on  the 
analogy  of  Ex.  xii,  22.  Num.  xix.  6,  Lev.  xiv.  4 — 6,  &c.);  (6) 
that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  was  sprinkled  as  well  as  the 
people — perhaps  from  tj^e  Hagada  that  the  book  was  lying  on 
the  altar  when  Moses  sprinkled  it  (Ex.  xxiv.  7);  and  (7)  that 
on  a  subsequent  occasion  he  sprinkled  the  Tabernacle  and  all 
its  furniture.  The  latter  circumstance  is  mentioned  by  Jose- 
phus.^  It  was  probably  done  when  Moses  (Ex,  xl.  9,  10)  an- 
ointed the  Tabernacle  and  its  implements  with  holy  oil.  By 
a  similar  sprinkling  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  consecrated  to 
their  sacred  functions  (Lev.  viii.  30),  and  the  altar  was  touched 
with  blood  to  hallow  it  for  use.  These  seven  references  to  the 
traditional  lore  of  the  Rabbis  incidentally  mark  the  writer  as 
an  accomplished  "pupil  of  the  wise." 

1  Isa.  liii.  12.     The  sense  may  be  "  to  take  away'"''  in  the  Hebrew. 

2  Of  course  this  does  not  mean  that  He  did  not  bear  the  sins  oi  all,  as  is  again  and  again 
stated  in  Scripture  ;  but  "  many"  is  used  as  the  antithesis  of  "few."  Once  for  all,  One  died 
for  all,  who  were  (quantitively)  many.  (See  Life  o/St.  Paul,  ii.  216).  Christ  iriay  be  said 
both  to  offer  Himself  (v.  14),  and  to  be  offered  (ver.  28),  just  as  He  Is  said  to  deliver  up  Him- 
self for  us  (Eph.  V.  2),  or  to  be  delivered  for  us  (Rom.  iv.  25). 

3  Not  merely  "without  sin"  (which  would  be  arep),  but  "apart  from  all  connexion  with 
sin"  (comp.  vii.  26),  either  in  the  form  of  temptation  (iv.  15)  or  burden  (2  Cor.  y.  21).  At 
His  first  appearance  also  Christ  was  "without  sin."  but  he  was  not  "apart  from  sin,"  for  He 
was  tempted  like  as  we  are  ;  and  He  was  made  sin  for  us  ;  but  at  His  second  coming  he  shall 
have  tiiumphed  over  sin,  and  taken  it  away  (Dan.  ix.  24,  25  ;   Isa.  xxv.  7-9). 

■1  ix.  18-28.  In  this,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  it  is  remarkable  how  evidently  the  sacred 
writers,  as  a  rule,  avoid  dwcIHn.sc  on  the  more  terrible  features  of  the  Second  Advent.  "  How 
shall  He  be  seen?"  says  St.  Chrysostom.  "Does  He  say,  as  a  Punisher?  He  did  not  say 
this,  but  the  bright  aspect."  Their  7ior>iial  conception  of  the  Returning  Christ  was  not  the 
wrathful  avenging  figure  of  Michael  Angelo,  with  His  right  hand  uplifted  as  He  turns  away 
from  His  interceding  mother,  to  drive  the  lost  myriads  of  humanity  in  dense  herds  before 
Him,  but  the  Deliverer  bringing  glory  and  salvation  to  all  His  children.  It  is  not  that  they 
exclude  the  other  notion  altogether  (x.  27  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  16;  2  Thess.  i.  8),  but  they  do  not 
love  to  dwell  on  it.  The  parallelism  of  these  two  verses  is  as  follows  : — Man  dies  once,  and 
then  is  judged  ;  the  Christ  died  once  for  man,  and  .shall  return  to  be  (he  might  have  s.iid  '*  the 
Judge,''^  but  he  does  say)  "  the  Sainour  of  those  who  look  for  Him." 

^  Afitt.  iii.  8,  §  6.  On  the  whole  passage  see  especially  lUcek's  Commentary.  Philo,  De 
Vit.  Mas.  iii.  18  {Oj>/>.  ii.  157,  ed.  Mangey)  is  referred  to,  but  he  does  not  make  this  statement. 


276  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

But  far  more  important  is  the  general  scope  of  this  chapter 
as  proving  the  unapproachable  superiority  of  Christ's  priest- 
hood over  that  of  the  sons  of  Aaron. 

If  any  one  desired  to  contemplate  the  Levitical  high  priest- 
hood in  its  grandest  phase — to  realise  its  antiquity,  its  sacred- 
ness,  the  splendour  of  its  ministrations,  and  the  awful  sense 
of  responsibility  with  which  its  representative  was  bound  to 
fulfil  its  functions — he  would  naturally  have  turned  his  thoughts 
to  the  great  Day  of  Atonement — that  "Sabbath  of  Sabbatism" 
— which  was  the  most  memorable  day  ol  the  Jewish  year.  It 
was  the  day  of  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  people,  and 
was  observed  as  a  perfect  Sabbath.^  It  was  the  one  fast-day 
of  the  Jewish  calendar.^  It  was  emphatically  '7/^^  day."  The 
seventy  bullocks  prescribed  for  sacrifice  during  this  week  were 
supposed  to  be  an  atonement  not  for  Jews  only,  but  for  the 
seventy  nations  of  the  world. ^ 

It  was  supposed  that  on  New  Year's  Day  (Tishri  i)  the 
Divine  decrees  are  written  down,  and  that  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement  (Tishri  lo)  they  are  sealed,"  so  that  the  decade  is 
known  by  the  name  of  "Terrible  Days,"  and  "the  Ten  Peni- 
tential Days."  So  awful  was  the  Day  of  Atonement  that  we 
are  told  in  a  Jewish  book  of  ritual  that  the  very  angels  run  to 
and  fro  in  fear  and  trembling,  saying,  "Lo",  the  Day  of  Judg- 
ment has  come!"  It  was  not  until  that  day  that  the  full  par- 
don was  granted  which  repentance  had  insured.*  On  that 
day  the  year  of  Jubilee  was  proclaimed.  On  that  day  alone 
the  people  came  early  to  the  synagogues  and  left  them  late.® 
On  that  day  alone,  they  said,  Satan  has  no  power  to  accuse, 
for  Ha-Satan  by  numeration  (Gematria)  is  364,  which  means 
that  on  the  one  remaining  day  of  the  year  he  is  forced  to  be 
silent.'  To  die  on  the  eve  of  that  day  was  a  good  omen.®  It 
was  supposed  to  be  the  day  on  which  Adam  had  sinned  and 
repented;  on  which  Abraham  was  circumcised;  on  which  the 
latter  tables  had  been  given  to  Moses.*  It  was  supposed  by 
some  to  secure  pardon  for  most  sins  even  without  repentance, 
and  indeed,  according  to  Rabbi  Judah  Hakkodesh,  for  all  sins 
except  apostasy.'"     The  Gentiles  are  said  to  have  committed  a 

»  Uv.  xvi.  3t :  •)1^i©  na©. 

w  •r'^'i*  !'"'**:'-''-"''.'y  ^='^Vs  ^f 'In:  Pharisees  in  the  davs  of  Christ  were  a  later  invention.     (See 
•  1/   ^    7'b'  '"a^^^/^  ^  Succah,  f.  55,  ?..  4  Rosh  Hashanah,  f.  16,  a. 

Yoma,  I.  85,  b  ;  f.  86.  a  (Lev.  xvi.  30).  The  reader  will  find  a  deeply  interesting  account 
01  the  Uay  of  Atoncnicnt  compiled  from  the  'I'almiid  (especially  Yoma)  in  Hamburger,  s.  v. 
^*rsdh*tuHfr^^<\  Mr.  Hcrshon's  Treasures  0/ the  Talmud,  89-114. 

.McKillah.  f.  23,  a.  7  Yox  this  they  quoted  Ps.  Ixviii.  28  ;  Rosh  Hashanah,  f.  t6,  b. 

Kcthuboth,  f.  103.  b.  9  Bava  Kathra,  f.  121,  a. 

'»  Kcnihotn,  f.  7,  a  ;  Shcvuoth,  f.  13,  a  ;  Yoma,  f.  86   a. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  2// 

fatal  and  suicidal  error  in  destroyin.jr  the  Altar,  because  it 
made  atonement  even /or  thcm^  which  was  now  impossible/ 
Three  books,  it  was  said,  are  opened  on  New  Year's  Day — 
one  for  the  perfectly  wicked,  one  for  the  perfectly  righteous, 
and  one  for  the  intermediate  class.  The  first  are  sealed  to 
death,  and  the  second  to  life;  the  fate  of  the  third  is  sus- 
pended till  the  Day  of  Atonement.''' 

Nothing  could  exceed  the  solicitude  with  which  the  High 
Priest  was  prepared  for  the  sacred  functions  of  the  day. 
Seven  days  before  it  came  he  was  removed  from  his  own  resi- 
dence to  the  chamber  of  the  President  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and 
he  appointed  a  Sagan,  or  deputy,  to  act  for  him  in  case  of  his 
being  incapacitated  by  any  Levitic  impurity.  When  the  elders 
of  the  Sanhedrin  had  read  over  to  him  the  duties  of  the  day, 
they  said,  "My  Lord  High  Priest,  read  for  thyself,  read  for 
thyself;  perhaps  thou  hast  forgotten,  or  never  learnt  it."  On 
the  day  before,  he  was  taken  to  the  east  gate,  and  with  bul- 
locks, rams,  and  lambs  actually  before  him,  was  instructed  what 
to  do.  Towards  the  dusk  of  the  last  evening  he  was  only  al- 
lowed to  eat  little,  lest  he  should  be  sleepy.  Then  he  was 
handed  over  to  the  senior  priests,  who  swore  him  in,  and  said, 
"My  Lord  High  Priest,  we  are  the  ambassadors  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin, and  thou  art  our  ambssador,  and  we  adjure  thee  by  Him 
who  dwells  in  this  house  that  thou  wilt  alter  nothing  that  we 
have  told  thee."  Then  they  parted,  he  and  they  both  weep- 
ing; they  because  they  suspected  he  was  a  Sadducee,  and  the 
penalty  for  wrongful  suspicion  was  scourging;  and  he  because 
they  suspected  him.^  During  the  night,  if  he  was  a  learned 
man,  he  preached  or  read  to  others;  if  not,  they  preached  or 
read  to  him.  The  books  read  to  him  were  Job,  Ezra,  Chron- 
icles, and  Daniel.  If  he  became  drowsy,  the  younger  priests 
filliped  their  fingers  before  him,  and  said,  "My  Lord  High 
Priest,  stand  up  and  cool  thy  feet  upon  the  pavement."  Thus 
they  kept  him  engaged  till  the  time  of  sacrifice,  lest  by  chance 
any  accidental  defilement  should  spoil  his  propitiation.  And 
so  important  was  his  ceremonial  purity  that  if  he  was  found 
performing  the  sacred  duties  in  a  state  of  defilement,  the 
junior  priests  might  drag  him  into  the  Hall  of  Paved  Squares 

'  Succah,  f.  55,  b.  These  and  the  preceding  passages  have  been  collected  by  Mr.  Hcrshon 
in  his  interesting  Tnlinudic  MisccUatiies. 

2  This  information  was  furnished  by  P21ijah  theTishbite  to  Rav  Judah.  and  he  proved  it  by 
Gematria  as  above  (Yoma,  f.  20,  a).  This  treatise  of  the  Talmud  is  devoted  to  the  Day  of 
Atonement.  It  is  one  of  the  earliest,  and  was  written  by  Simeon  of  Mizpeh,  a  contemporary 
of  Gamaliel  the  First  ( Derenljourg,  p.  375,  who  refers  to  Peah,  ii.  6  :  Yoma,  14,  ^). 

3  Voma,  f.  2,  a  ;  18,  a,  b  ;  19,  b.  In  the  Herodian  Temple  the  ark  and  mercy-seat  were 
only  suJ>J>oseil  to  be  present.     The  sprinklings  were  made  towards  the  stone  of  the  foundatiuii. 


?;S  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

..nd  brain  him  with  clubs/  It  may  be  safely  said  that,  to  the 
inia^nnation  of  a  Jew,  the  most  solemn  moment  of  the  year 
was'^that  in  which  the  High  Priest  in  his  white  robes  alone  be- 
fore the  Presence  of  God  in  the  Holy  of  Holies;  and  that  the 
proudest  and  gladdest  moment  of  the  year  was  that  in  which, 
awe-struck  but  safe,  he  came  forth  from  the  Holy  Place  in  his 
golden  garments  to  bless  and  to  dismiss  the  forgiven  worship- 

ncrs.'' 

To  the  Mosaic  ritual  the  Jews  added  many  legendary  par- 
ticulars. They  said,  perhaps  with  reference  to  Isa.  i.  i8,  that 
round  the  horns  of  the  scapegoat  which  was  to  be  "for  Aza- 
zcl,"  and  round  the  neck  of  the  goat  "for  Jehovah,"  was  tied 
a  tongue  of  scarlet  cloth,  and  that  if  the  ceremonies  of  the 
day  were  accepted  by  God,  then  this  tongue  of  scarlet  w^as 
turned  to  white.  They  also  asserted  that,  in  order  to  secure 
that  the  scapegoat  should  not,  with  fatally  evil  omen,  wander 
back  to  the  congregation,  it  was  sent  by  the  hands  of  a  trusty 
person  to  Zuk,  some  cliff  in  the  wilderness,  down  which  it  was 
hurled  backwards  and  killed.'  The  later  Rabbis,  echoing 
perhaps  the  mournful  traditions  of  the  last  days  of  Jerusaelm, 
told  how,  in  the  time  of  Simeon  the  Just,  the  lot  for  the  Lord 
always  fell  on  the  righthand'  goat,  and  the  tongue  of  scarlet 
always  turned  white;  but  forty  years  before  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple — a  date  which  closely  corresponds  with  the 
death  of  Christ — the  lot  did  not  fall  on  the  right,  nor  the  crim- 
son cloth  turn  white,  nor  a  light  burn  in  the  west.  And  the 
doors  of  the  Temple  opened  of  themselves,  so  that  R.  Jo- 
chanan  Ben  Zaccai  rebuked  them,  and  said,  "O  Temple, 
Temple,  why  art  thou  dismayed?  I  know  thy  end  will  be  to 
be  destroyed,  for  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Iddo,  hath  foretold 
concerning  thee,  'Open  thy  doors,  O  Lebanon,  that  the  fire 
may  devour  thy  cedars.'  "^ 


>  Saiihedrin,  f.  8i,  ^. 

'  Further  dc-uils  of  the  ceremony  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  will  be  found  in  Excursus  XII. 
I  crciiiunics  of  the  Day  of  Atonement." 

*  Voma,  f.  66,  n.    'I  here  is  no  such  provision  in  the  Law.     "Zuk"  was  to  be  12^  miles 
in  Tcnisalcm.     Hcc  Ucrshon's  Treasures  o/tAe  7\iimuei,  ch.  \ii. 

*  Ia:v.  xvi.  8-10. 

'  Zcth.  xi.  1  ;  Voina,  f.  29,  f:     Since  the  due  fulfilment  of  the  ceremonies  of  this  great  day 

has  for  i.8on  yc^r*  lx:en  impossible  to  the  Jews,  the  reader  maybe  interested   to  see  the 

iiK-lancholy  folly  into  which   its   splendid  ordinances  have  degenerated   in  the  hands  of  the 

I    h«h  Jews.     It  is  now  observed  by  what  is  called  "The  Atonement  of  the  Cock."     Since,  in 

e  p.issai;e  of  the  Talmud,  f'.cvcr  (154)  is  used,  not  for  "man,"  but  for  "cock  "   (Yoma,  f. 

-       '  '      '  Rabbis  have  invented  the  substitution  of  a  cock  for  a  man  (Temurath  Ge\er 

'  '  "•".  custom  has  become  a  law  according  to  th-i  rule  "  custom  is  as  law."    Fowls, 

white  cocks,  arc  in  Kteat  request  on  that  day,  as  indicating  that  though  the 

•   in.ui  who  kills  It  l)c  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  while  as  snow.     The  legs  of  the  cock 

'.  and   holdiMK  them  in   his  hand,  the  Jew  repeats  the  customary  prayer.     Then  he 

ihc  cock  round  and  round  his  head  with  the  words,  "This  is  my  substitute Xt-Vm/a- 


THE   EriSTLlC   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  279 

They  also  regarded  the  function  of  the  Hii2:h  IViest  on  this 
day  as  one  of  extreme  peril.  In  his  varicnis  confessions  he  had 
to  pronounce  ten  times  the  Sacred  'I'etraii^rammaton — tlie  in.- 
elTable  name  of  Jehovah.  The  injunction  never  to  enter  the 
Holiest  except  on  that  one  clay  of  all  the  year  hiid  been  laid 
on  Aaron  after  the  sudden  death  which  had  avenged  the  pre- 
sumptuous irreverence  of  his  two  eldest  sons,  Nadab  and 
Abihu;  and  the  Jews  said  that  if  the  High  Priest  entered  the 
Holies  Jit 'i'  times  instead  of  the  four  which  were  actually  neces- 
sary, he  was  slain  by  the  wrath  of  God.'  They  even  believed 
that  many  High  Priests  had  perished  on  that  day  for  neglect 
of  the  details  which  they  swore  to  observe.  During  the  whole 
ceremony  the  High  Priest  was  alone  in  the  Tabernacle.  No 
Priest,  until  it  was  completed,  was  allowed  to  enter  even  into 
the  Holy  Place.*  Hence  the  people,  standing  in  the  Court  of 
Israel,  waited  with  intense  solicitude  the  reappearance  of  the 
High  Priest  through  the  outer  veil.  After  his  last  entrance 
into  the  Holiest,  he  prayed  in  the  Holy  Place;  and  it  was  a 
special  custom  to  make  the  prayer  a  short  one,  both  from  the 
awfulness  of  the  solitude  and  in  order  that  the  apprehensions 
of  the  people  might  not  be  too  painfully  kindled  by  any  long 
delay.  ^ 

Now  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  show^s  his  fairness  of  spirit 
by  taking  this  great  ceremonial  as  his  point  of  comparison,  in 
order  to  give  every  advantage  to  the  priesthood  of  which  he 
wishes  to  prove  the  inferiority.  He  might  have  touched — a 
smaller  man  certainly  would  have  touched — on  the  sacerdotal 
functions  in  their  meaner,  more  trivial,  more  repellent  aspect; 
but  instead  of  this  he  takes  the  Aaronic  Priesthood  in  the 
crown  and  flower  of  its  loftiest  ritual,  and  strives  to  warn  the 
Christian  converts  from  the  peril  of  retrograding,  by  showing 
how  the  work  and  person  of  Christ  transcend  these  seductive, 
but  transitory  and  unsatisfying  splendours.  If  the  ritual  of 
this  day  was,  after  all,  a  nullity,  how  great  a  nullity  must  be 
the  other  Levitical  details!    These  High  Priests  were  but  pro- 

j^hxthi),  my  commutation  {Toitarnthi),  my  atonement  {KapparntJa)."  Then  the  cocl;'s 
neck  IS  wrung,  it  is  dashed  on  the  ground,  and  its  throat  is  cut,  so  that  it  undergoes  (in  a 
sense)  the  four  Mosaic  capital  punishments  of  strangling,  stoning,  beheading,  and  burning. 
1  borrow  these,  among  other  interesting  particulars,  from  the  Je-.visk  Herald  for  July,  i8So. 

'  Maimonides  in  Surenhusius,  MisJitia,  ii.  232.  See  Lev.  xvi.  2,  13.  In  the  evening  the 
High  Priest  gave  a  banquet  to  his  friends  to  commemorate  his  safety.  Perhaps  it  was  the 
awe  inspired  by  the  ceremony  which  made  tiie  Sadducean  High  Priests  of  our  Ix)rd's  day  so 
willing  tc  hand  the  office  from  one  to  another.  See  Li/e  0/  Christ,  ii.  342  ;  Derenbourg, 
234  sq. 

2  Lev.  xvj.  17.  .        ,  ^ 

3  Yoma,  IV.  7  (Surenhusius,  Mishnn,  ii.  231).  See  Excursus  XHI.  "  Impressions  left  on 
the  Mind  of  the  Jews  by  the  Ceremonies  of  the  Day  of  Atonement." 


280  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

visional.  From  Aaron  downwards  their  dignity  had  been 
dwarfed  and  overshadowed  by  the  mysterious  grandeur  of 
Melchizedek.  They  were  but  priests;  He  who  came  to  cancel 
their  prerogatives  was,  like  his  antitype,  a  King  as  well  as  a 
Priest.  They  are  for  a  time;  He  is  for  ever.  They  are  but 
links  in  a  long  succession,  each  with  many  predecessors,  each 
transmitting  his  ofifice  to  his  posterity;  He  stands  alone,  pre- 
ceded by  none,  with  no  successor.  They  were  established  by 
an  ordinance  of  Moses;  He  by  the  oath  of  God.  They  were 
sinful;  He  is  innocent.  They  weak;  He  all-powerful.  They 
had  to  offer  "daily"  sacrifices;  He  offered  Himself  once  for 
all.  They  serve  a  Tabernacle  which  is  but  a  copy  and  shadow 
of  the  True;  He  is  a  Minister  of  the  Immaterial,  the  Ideal 
Tabernacle,  Eternal  in  the  Heavens.  Their  dispensation  is 
declared  to  be  Old;  His  is  prophesied  of  as  New  and  founded 
on  better  promises.  They  died  and  passed  away;  He  sits  for 
ever  at  the  right  hand  of  God  still  to  make  intercession  for 
His  people. 

Further,  the  fact  that  even  the  Priests  might  not  enter  into 
the  Holiest  stamped  with  imperfection  their  whole  ministration. 
The  restriction  proved  that  the  priesthood  could  not  perfect 
the  worshipper  as  to  his  inmost  life,  since  it  was  unable  to  lead 
him  into  the  Presence-chamber  of  God.  The  whole  Dispen- 
sation of  which  their  ritual  formed  a  part  was  necessarily 
provisional,  consisting  as  it  mainly  did  in  matters  relating  to 
meats  and  drinks  and  washings — human  ordinances,  only  im- 
posed as  preparatory  to  the  season  of  their  final  rectification. 
The  High  Priest  did  indeed  enter  the  Holiest  with  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  goats;  but  it  was  an  exceptional  privilege,  not  a 
right  of  continual  and  fearless  access.  The  fact  that  it  was 
necessary  for  him  to  make  an  atonement  year  after  year, 
showed  how  little  permanent  was  the  effect  of  even  that  solemn 
purification.  And  though  he  entered  with  awful  precautions, 
so  conscious  were  the  people  for  whom  he  sacrificed  that  he 
was  but  a  weak  and  sinful  man,  that  they  awaited  his  return 
in  trembling  suspense,  lest  by  some  sin  or  error  he  should 
provoke  the  wrath  of  God.  Yet  this  was  the  system,  this  the 
central  act  of  the  system,  to  which  Christians,  heirs  of  privi- 
leges so  infinitely  greater,  were  looking  back  with  longing 
glances — to  which  some  of  them  were  even  tempetd  to  apos- 
tatise or  retrogress!  And  what  a  retrogression!  They  were 
looking  back  to  their  petty  Levitism,  while  Christ,  the  Media- 
tor of  a  new,  of  a  better,  of  a  final  dispensation— Christ, 
Whose  death  had  made  valid  His  Testament,  Whose  blood 


TftE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  28 1 

had  a  real  and  not  a  symbolic  efficacy' — had  died  for  all,  and 
having  died — not  many  times,  but  once  for  all,  not  as  one  of 
a  long  line,  but  Alone  for  all — not  for  Himself,  because  He 
did  not  need  it — not  as  a  sinful  man,  but  as  the  sinless  Son  of 
God — not  with  the  blood  of  calves  and  goats,  but  with  His 
own  blood — had  entered  not  into  a  secondary  and  imitative 
tabernacle  of  perishable  gold,  but  into  one  greater  and  more 
precious,  and  not  made  with  hands!  And  so,  passing  for  ever 
into  the  Immediate  Presence  of  God,  He  had  opened  a  way 
thither  for  all,  obtaining  an  eternal  redemption.  And  having 
thus  with  His  own  blood  purified,  not  the  earthly  shadows  of 
things,  but  even  the  heavenly  things  themselves.  He  would, 
at  the  consummation  of  the  Ages,  appear  for  salvation  to  those 
who  were  awaiting  Him  with  feelings  not  of  terror  but  of 
hope;  He  would  appear,  not  as  a  sinful  man,  not  even  as  bear- 
ing the  sins  of  men,  but  apart  from  all  sin,  as  the  Everlasting 
Victor  over  all  sin,  with  death  and  every  other  enemy  laid 
prostrate  beneath  His  feet.'^ 

SECTION   VI. 

A   RECAPITULATION. 

It  only  remained  for  the  writer  to  sum  up  his  argument, 
which  he  does  in  the  first  eighteen  verses  of  the  following 
chapter.  In  these  he  dwells  mainly  on  Christ's  voluntary 
offering  of  Himself  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  which  he 
illustrates  from  Ps.  xl.  6,  7;^  on  the  one  act  of  Christ's  Re- 
demption as  contrasted  with  the  many  Levitic  sacrifices;*  and 
on  Christ's  finished  work  in  accordance  with  the  great  prophecy 
of  Jeremiah,'^  which  he  has  already  quoted.''  And  thus  the 
leading  thoughts  of  the  argument  are  brought  together  in 
one  grand  finale,  just  as  in  the  finale  of  a  piece  of  music  all 
the  hitherto  scattered  elements  are  united  in  an  effective 
whole.  ^ 

1  The  following  passages  illustrate  the  Jewish  belief  that  tliere  was  "no  remission  without 
blood  "  : — 

"Abraham  was  circumcised  on  the  Day  of  Atonement ;  and  on  that  day  God  looks  annu- 
ally on  the  blood  of  the  covenant  of  the  circumcision  as  atoning  for  all  our  iniquities  "  ( 1  'alkttt 
Kadas/i,  f.  121,  l>). 

"  R.  Eliezer  asked,  '  For  whose  benefit  were  the  seventy  bullocks  intended  ?  '  (Num.  xxix. 
12-36).  The  answer  is,  '  For  the  seventy  nations  of  the  Gentile  world,  to  atone  for  them. 
.  .  .  Woe  to  the  Gentile  nations  for  their  loss  and  .  .  .  they  know  not  what  they  have  lost  ; 
for  as  long  as  the  Temple  existed  the  Altar  made  Atonement  for  taem;  but  now  who  is  to 
atone  for  them  ?  '  "  ISuccak,  f.  55,  l>). 

2  See  Jeremy  Taylor's  Life  0/  Christ,  iii.  §  15.  "  He  was  arrayed  with  ornaments  more 
glorious  than  the  robes  of  Aaron.  The  crown  of  thorns  was  his  mitre,  the  cross  his  pastoral 
staff  .  .  .  and  his  tlesh  rased  and  chequered  with  blue  and  blood  instead  of  the  parti-coloured 
robe."  3x,  i-io.  ^x.  II-I4- 

5  See  viii.  8-12  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  33,  34.  «  x.  15-1S.  ''  Delitzsch. 


282  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

".  For  the  Law  having  a  shadow  >  of  the  good  things  to  come, 2  not  the  very 
fomi^of  the  thinsrs— they  c;m  never,^  with  the  same  sacrifices,  year  by  year. 
which  they  ofler  continuously,  perfect  (vii.  11,  xi.9)  them  that  draw  nigh  (vii.  26). 
Since,  in  that  ca^e.  would  they  not  have  ceased  to  be  offered,  because  the  wor- 
shippers, puritied  once  for  all,  would  have  had  no  more  consciousness  of  sins  ?  But 
in  tJiese  sacrilices  there  is  a  calling  to  mind  of  sins  year  by  year  ;»  for  it  is  impos- 
sible for  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  to  take  away  sins. «  Therefore,  on  entering 
into  tlie  world  He  saith,^  '^Sacriticc  and  offering  thou  wouldest  not,«  but  a  body 
didst  thou  prepare  for  me,^  whole  burnt  offerings  and  sin-offerings  thou  approvedst 

'  viii.  s  (comp.  CoL  ii.  17)  :  «  ea-rt.  criua  tuv  fieWovTiav,  to  Se  triafta  tou  XpiOTOu. 

^  ix.  ti. 

5  For  other  uses  of  the  word,  see  2  Cor.  iv.  4.  where  Christ  is  called  the  e'lKfav  of  God. 
*'  Uinl'ra  in  I-ege  ;  Ima^o  in  Evangelio  ;  Veritas  in  Coelo,'"  S.  Ambrose  in  Ps.  xx.xviii.  (see 
I  Cor.  xiiL  12). 

*  'ihe  l^est  supported  reading  seems  to  l:)e  hivcunax.,  and  all  the  more  because  it  is  the 
more  dilTiciilt  reading,  J^,  A,  C.  But  with  this  reading,  the  passage  becomes  an  anakoluthon, 
and  the  «aj-*  ei/iawrb*'  (if  we  accept  the  rendering  of  the  E.  V.)  is  very  strangely  placed  {/ij'Per- 
tatoH).  'i'o  avoid  this  difficult^'  some  expbin  it  thus  : — "They  (the  priests)  can  never,  year 
by  >'ear,  uith  the.  same  sacrifices  which  they  offer  continuously,  make  them  that  draw  nigh 
periect."  The  meaning  will  then  be  that  the  priests  cannot  by  the  sacrifices  of  the  Great  Day 
of  .Atuneme/it — which  are  after  all  but  the  same  sin-offerings  as  they  offer  dailj^ — perfect  the 
worsliippers.  Vet  another  way  of  taking  the  words  is  to  separate  the  Ka.r  eyiavrw  rat? 
airrali  by  coinmas,  and  render  "can  never  perfect  the  comers  by  the  sacrifices  which  they 
offer,  which  are  tliesame  year  by  year."  .So  Bleek  and  De  Wette.  But  after  all  it  is  not  im- 
I>ossibJe  tliat  Svpotn-at  maj'  be  a  mere  clerical  error. 

*  .See  V.  3,  and  note  on  vii.  27.  Here  again,  we  find  a  striking  resemblance  to  Philo,  who 
speaks  of  the  sacrifices  providing  "  not  an  oblivion  of  sins,  but  a  reminding  of  them  "  {JM  I'lct. 
Oj^'.,  and  De  I'it.  Mas.  iiu).  And  again  {De  ^lant.  Noe\  he  calls  attention  to  Niun.  v.  15, 
vhcre  Moses  sjieaks  of  the  meat-offering  of  jealousy  as  being  "  a  memorial  meat-offering 
briMgiKg  iniquity  L)  rcwemliraitce."  I'he  fact  that  the  oft-repeated  sacrifices  thus  7C- 
tninded  the  worshipper  of  sins,  and  pointed  daily  to  the  means  of  their  removal,  and  exercised 
his  olx:<liencc  in  offering  tliem,  was  the  justification  of  their  existence,  although  they  were  in- 
trinsically witliout  efficacy. 

*  ImjwssJUe  that  sacrifices  should  have  this  efficacy  in  themselves  ;  they  can  only  possess 
ityVr  accuii-HS,  by  faith,  and  because  of  tlie  special  grace  of  God  attached  to  them.  Even  the 
'J'almiidists  saw  and  said  that  the  Day  of  Atonement  itself  was  no  remedy  for,  no  expiation  of, 
the  willing  sin  which  constantly  defers  repentance  (Yoma,  viii.  9). 

'  TliLs  remarkable  (quotation  comes  from  Ps.  xl.  6,  7.  It  is  probably  a  Psalm  of  David,  and 
although  diis  passage  rs  typically  Messianic,  otlier  parts  of  the  Psalm  {e.g.,  ver.  12)  are  almost 
exclusively  jjcrsonaL  15ut  yet  the  *'  He  saith  "  means  "  Christ  saith,"  because  the  words  of 
David  apply  in  a  deeper  and  truer  sense  to  Him. 

"  "Th«u  carest  not  for  slain  beast  and  bloodless  oblation."  ITiis  is  one  of  the  many 
memorable  utterances  of  the  Prophets,  which  show  that  they  had  been  led  to  feel  the  nullity 
of  sacrifices  rcgiirded  as  mere  outward  acts,  and  the  vast  superiority  of  a  .spiritual  worship. 
It  specially  reseinWes  i  Sam.  xv.  22,  and  anticipates  the  grand  tlioughts  of  Isaiah  {i.  it-17)  ; 
Jcrcmi.ih  (vi.  20;  vii.  21-23)  ;  Hosea  (vi.  6);  Amos  (v.  21-24):  and,  above  all,  Micah  (vi. 
6-8/.  Phil/i  in  a  JK-autiful  passage  (De  />lafit.  Noe)  shows  how  well  he  had  caught  tlie  spirit 
of  these  prophetic  jKLSsages,  wlicn  he  warns  nsfainst  the  ignorant  superstition  which  confounded 
the  offering  of  sacrifices  with  the  practice  of  piety,  and  against  the  fancy  that  sacrifices  alone 
will  clc:uu>w:  from  moral  giiilt.  He  adds  djat  (iod  accepts  the  innocent  even  wlien  they  offer 
110  sacnficic,  and  deli^iiLs  in  fireless  altars  round  which  the  virtues  dance. 

"  A  rc-markabk;  variation  of  the  LXX.  from  the  Hebrew  text,  which  literally  \s  "  Ears 
hast  titnu  titj^ged /or  me."  How  did  this  variation  arise?  (i.)  One  supposition  is  that  the 
I. XX.  tjlliiwed  a  different  reading,  but  this  Ls  now  generally  abandoned,  as  the  attempts  to 
.liter  iJie  Holrew  text  have  liecn  unsuccessful ;  and  all  other  versions  render  the  clause  literally, 
shou  injj  tliai  ilicy  had  the  present  Hebrew  text  (iL)  Nor  is  it  very  probal)le  that  the  text  of 
J'"„''^^-  »iC'»rni|)t,  tJi.nigh  Usher  and  ethers  have  ven>'  ingeniously  supposed  that  KATHP- 
■  K  ^'ip  '' ''^  *^'"  '  '''"'iJ*^^  partly  by  home eoteleu ton.  and  partly  by  mistaking  TI  for  M, 
'"'"  »-^TllrTIlA2  2QMA  ;  and  the  reading  olrta  is  acUiaily  traceable  in  some  manuscripts, 
(m.;  It  IN  however,  more  prolwljJc  that  tl)e  I.XX.  use  thei.-  phrase  as  a  sort  of  Targum,  a 
way  of  exiJaniing  a  Hebrew  allusion  which  they  jjerhaps  thought  would  be  unintelligible  to 
<.-  i,ii|.  r.  il.  rs  I'lic  next  questirin  is.  How  did  they  arrive  at  tliis  .sense?  (a)  A  favourite 
•  ihc  Hel^rew  expression  alludes  to  the  custom  of  boring  the  ear  of  a  slave 
M  wi  fccrvitiidc  (Ex.  xxvL  6  ;  Deut.  xv.  17),  so  that  the  bored  e.ir  would  be 
-  .Itciice.  Ihit  the  verb  means  rather  "digged"  than  "bored  "  (as  in  Ex. 
XM.  0).  .aid  il  iluk  cxj4anation  were  true  we  should  expect  "ear,"  not  "ears."  (/3)  It  seems 
Diucli  more  Jikcly  thai  the  phra.se  "digging  the  ears  "  refers  to  opening  the  ears  so  that  the 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  283 

not.  Then  I  said,  Lo,  I  have  come  (in  the  roll  of  the  book  it  has  been  written 
concerning  me')  to  do,  O  God,  'Thy  will. '2  Saying  as  above,  'Sacrifices  and 
oft'erings  and  whole  burnt  offerings,  and  sin  offerings,  thou  wouldest  not,  nor 
even  appro vedst  (the  which  are  offered  according  to  the  Law),^  th(;n  He  has 
said,  '  Lo,  I  have  come  to  do  Thy  will."  He  takes  away  the  first  (namely,  sacri- 
fices) '  that  He  may  establish  the  second  '  (namely,  the  Will  of  Gocl).  '  By  wliich 
will  we  have  been  sanctified  by  the  offering  of  the  body  (vs.  8,  Rom.  xii.  1)  of 
Jesus  Christ  once  for  all.' 

"And  every  High  Priest,'*  indeed,  standeth  daily  ministering,  and  offering 
often  the  same  sacrifices,  of  a  kind  which  are  never  able  to  strip  away  sms.* 
But  He,  after  offering  one  sacrifice  for  sins  for  ever,  sat  down  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  (vii.  27,  viii,  i),  henceforth  awaiting  until  His  enemies  be  placed  as  a 
footstool  for  His  feet,«  For  by  one  offering  He  hath  perfected  (vii.  11,  25)  for 
ever  those  who  are  in  the  way"  of  sanctification.** 

' '  But  the  Holy  Spirit  also  testifies  to  us.  For  after  having  said,  '  This  is  the 
covenant  which  I  will  make  with  them  after  those  days,"  saith  the  Lord,*'  giving 


soul  may  hear  and  obey — a  metaphor  found  both  in  i  Sam.  xv.  22,  and  in  Is.  1.  5  :  "  the 
Lord  hath  opened  the  ear  for  me,  and  I  was  not  rebellious''''  (comp.  Is.  xlviii.  8).  The 
meaning  of  the  Psalmist  will  then  be  "thou  hast  revealed  to  me,"  or  "  caused  me  to  hear  so 
as  to  obey."  'I'he  antithesis  of  the  four  clauses  in  the  two  verses  of  the  Psalm  is  then  perfect : — 
"  Slain  beast  and  bloodless  oblation  thou  desiredst  not. 
But  mine  ears  thou  diggedst. 

Burnt-offering  and  sin-offering  thou  requiredst  not, 
I'hen  said  I,  '  Lo  !  I  have  come  to  do  thy  will.'  " 
In  the  first  clauses  of  each  distich  we  have  the  sacrifices  for  which  (comparatively,  or  in  them- 
selves) God  does  not  care ;  in  the  second  clauses  the  obedience  for  which  He  does  care  (see 
IVIcCaul's  Messiahship  of  Jeszis,  p.  162).  In  this  sense  then,  the  rendering  of  the  LXX., 
though  not  a  translation,  is  an  intelligible,  though  somewhat  bold,  paraphrase,  the  "body" 
apparently  meaning  "  the  form  of  a  slave"  (comp.  Phil.  ii.  7  ;  Rev.  xviii.  13).  Finding  the 
rendering  in  the  LXX.,  believing  it  to  represent  the  true  sense  of  the  original  (as  it  does),  and 
also  seeing  it  to  be  eminently  illustrative  of  his  subject,  the  writer  naturally  adopts  it.  The 
.s.'.ggestion  of  an  ancient  writer  that  it  was  he  who  altered  the  reading  of  the  LXX.  must 
be  unhesitatingly  rejected.  The  word  "holocausts,"  or  whole  burnt-offerings,  occurs  here 
alone  in  this  Epistle.  They  were  the  emblem  of  entire  self-consecration  (while  the  meat- 
offerings were  eucharistic,  and  the  sin-offerings  expiatory).  But  the  holocaust  was  valueless 
without  the  self-sacrifice  of  which  it  was  the  symbol. 

1  Ke(|)(xAl?  is  properly  the  knob  [umbilicus)  of  the  roller  on  which  the  vellum  was  rolled. 
The  LXX.  chose  it  to  represent  the  Hebrew  Megillah.  The  writer  probably  did  not  stop  to 
ask  what  book  Daz'id  wixs  thinking  of,  because  his  mind  is  solely  occupied  with  the  Messianic 
application  in  which  "the  book"  would  be  the  whole  Old  Testament  (Luke  xxiv.  27).  The 
words  of  the  Psalm  may  mean  "  in  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  prescribed  to  me,"  or  as  Gesenius 
and  blwald  take  it,  "  1  am  come  with  the  volume  of  the  book  which  is  written  for  me."  ev 
Kti^akihi.  cannot  mean  "  in  the  chief  part"  (Luther),  or  "  in  the  beginning."  David  alludes 
to  the  writings  of  Moses,  or  possibly  to  the  unwritten  book  of  God's  purposes  (Ps.  cxxxix.  16). 
The  writer  has  omitted  the  words  "I  delight,"  before  "  to  do  Thy  will."  The  sacred  writers 
never  aim  at  verbal  accuracy  in  their  quotations,  since  they  did  not  hold  any  slavish  and  letter- 
worshipping  theory  of  verbal  inspiration.     They  hold  it  sufficient  to  give  the  general  sense. 

'■'  X.  i-io  (comp.  I  Thess.  iv.  3).  ^  -j-^e  tov  is  omitted  in  X>  A,  C. 

4  ipxiepeuj  (A,  C)  ;  iepev<;,  JuJ,  D,  E,  K,  L  (B  ends  at  KaBaipiel,  in  ix.  14).  As  to  the 
daily  offerings  of  the  High  Priest,  see  vii.  27,  but  the  supposed  difficulty  may  have  led  to  the 
virions  readings.  The  '^ standcth"  is  emphatic.  In  the  inner  court  none  were  allowed  10 
sit,  and  the  Levites  are  described  as  "  standing- before  the  face  of  the  Lord." 

^  ••'Jo  strip  away  " — sin  being  like  a  close-fitting  robe  (see  on  xii.  i). 

*■'  See  i.  13  ;   Ps.  ex.  i. 

"to  us  ayia^o/meVous  ;  literally,  "those  who  are  being  sanctified"  (ii.  11).  Sanctification  is 
continuous,  never  instant  and  complete  ;  but  in  the  perfect  sacrifice  of  Christ  lies  the  germ  of 
cert.un  ultimate  perfectionment  for  the  believer  (comp.  tous  aw^o^evovs,  Acts  ii.  47). 

''  X.  11-14. 

^  I'he  quotation  is  from  Jer.  xxxviii.  33,  34  (comp.  viii.  10-12).  To  avoid  the  soniewhat 
harsh  form  of  the  clause,  the  words  ijarepov  Ae'yct,  "Then  He  saith,"  are  added  before  vi.  17  as 
the  apodosis  to  fiera  to  elpr)Kei>ai.  I'liey  are  found  in  the  Philoxenian  Syriac,  and  were  placed 
by  Dr.  Paris  in  the  margin  of  the  Cambridge  Bible  of  1762.  There  is  no  MS.  or  ms.  authority 
for  them,  e.vcept  the  cursive  37.  Others  make  these  words  "  Saith  the  Lord,"  in  ver.  16,  pro- 
spective, and  so  the  true  apodosis.  The  question  is  not  very  important,  being  merely  one  oi 
continuity  of  style. 


284  'l'in<:   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

My  Laws  on  their  hearts,  and  upon  their  understandings  will  I  inscribe  them — 
and  their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more.  Now  where  re- 
mission of  these  is,  there  is  no  longer  offering  for  sin."  ^ 

Those  last  words  are  the  triumphant  close  of  the  argument. 
If  the  forgiveness,  the  removal,  the  obliteration  of  sin  has 
been  obtained,  the  object  of  all  expiatory  offerings  has  been 
accomplished,  and  they  are  rendered  not  only  needless,  but 
harmful  —  harmful  as  involving  a  faithlessness  to  Christ's 
finished  work.  If  offerings  are  no  longer  admissible,  there 
is  an  end  of  the  Aaronic  Priesthood;  and  if  of  the  Priesthood, 
then  also  of  the  Law,  which  was  based  upon  its  existence;  and 
if  of  the  Law,  then  of  the  entire  Old  Dispensation.  But  if 
the  Dispensation,  which  had  long  been  depreciated  by  the 
voice  of  prophecy  as  "old,"  was  now  utterly  vanishing  away, 
this  could  only  be  because,  in  accordance  with  that  same  sure 
word  of  prophecy,  the  New  had  been  inaugurated.  And  the 
New  was  an  abrogation  of  the  Old,  because  it  was  as  the  sub- 
stance to  the  shadow,  as  the  picture  to  the  sketch.  It  was 
founded  on  better  promises;  it  had  an  Eternal  High  Priest;  it 
needed  no  renewal:  it  looked  with  confidence  to  the  fulfilment 
of  illimitable  hopes;  it  rejoiced  in  the  admission  into  God's 
Presence,  by  virtue  of  the  finished  sacrifice  and  endless  inter- 
cession of  its  King  and  Priest,  its  Divine  Saviour  and  ever- 
lasting Lord. 

To  this  conclusion  the  whole  Epistle  has  been  leading  up. 
In  the  first  six  chapters,  with  many  hortative  and  illustrative 
digressions,  the  writer  has  made  good  his  opening  words,  that 
"God  had  in  these  last  days  revealed  Himself  to  us  in  His  Son." 
This  he  has  done  by  showing  Christ's  superiority  to  angels, 
the  mediators  of  the  Old  Covenant  (i.  5;  ii.  18),  and  to  Moses, 
the  appointed  Lawgiver  (iii.  i,  iv.  16).  Then,  after  showing 
the  way  in  which  Christ  fulfilled  the  qualifications  of  High 
Prie.sthood,  as  a  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek 
(v.  I — 10),  he  enters  on  the  solemn  strain  by  which  he  designs 
to  prepare  the  thoughts  of  his  readers  for  due  attention  to  his 
central  argument  (v.  11— vi.  20).  That  argument  falls  into 
three  parts,  namely — 

(a)  The  superiority  of  Melchizedek's  Priesthood,  and  there- 
fore of  the  Priesthood  of  Christ,  to  that  of  Aaron  in  many 
particulars  (vii.  i — 28). 

(n)  The  superiority  of  the  ordinances  of  Christ's  New  Dis- 
pensation to  those  of  the  Old  (viii.  i— ix.  28),  with  special  re- 
ference  to  the  ceremonies  of  the  Day  of  Atonement. 

J  X.  15-18. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  285 

(c)  The  final  recapitulation  and  summary  of  the  conclu- 
sions which  he  has  set  forth  (x.    i — 18), 

SECTION  VII. 

A   THUID    SOLEMN    WARNING. 

The  main  work  of  the  writer  is  finished.  He  has  set  before 
the  recent  converts  from  Judaism  incontrovertible  reasons  for 
holding  fast  that  which  they  had  received,  and  for  not  aban- 
doning the  better  for  the  worse,  the  complete  for  the  imper- 
fect, the  valid  for  the  inefficient,  the  archetype  for  the  copy, 
the  Eternal  for  the  evanescent.  It  only  remains  for  him  to 
supplement  the  weight  of  reasoning  by  solemn  warning  and 
appeal.  And  this  he  does,  first  by  an  exhortation  to  faith, 
partly  in  the  form  of  encouragement  (x.  19 — 25),  partly  of 
warning  (26 — 31);  next,  by  a  magnificent  historic  illustration 
of  what  faith  is  (xi.);  lastly,  by  fervent  exhortations  to  moral 
stedfastness  and  the  holiness  of  the  Christian  walk  (xii.  i — 
xiii.  19),  ending  by  a  few  affectionate  words  of  prayer  and 
blessing. 

The  first  burst  of  exhortation  I  proceed  to  translate,  both 
because  of  its  special  solemnity  and  because  it  offers  some 
difficulties  of  illustration  and  peculiarities  of  reading.  The 
translation  is  offered  not  by  any  means  as  preferable  to  other 
versions,  but  as  written  with  special  objects.  My  aim  is  to 
follow  (sometimes  silently)  what  seems  to  me  to  be  the  best 
text;  to  avoid  pages  of  discussion  by  only  giving  results;  and 
to  keep  as  nearly  as  possibly  to  the  form  of  the  original  Greek. 
In  the  notes  I  merely  offer  what  seems  to  me  to  be  most  neces- 
sary for  the  elucidation  of  the  text  in  the  briefest  form  into 
which  I  can  compress  it. 

"  Having,  then,  confidence,  brethren,  in  the  blood  of  Jesus'  for  our  entrance 
into  the  HoHes — (an  entrance)  which  He  inaugurates  for  us  as  a  fresh  and  a 
hving  road,'-*  through  the  veil,  that  is  His  flesh^ — and  (having)  a  Great  Priest' 
(set)  over  the  House  of  God,  let  us  approach  with  sincere  heart,  in  full  assur- 
ance of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil   conscience,  and  our 

'  These  words  go  best  with  napprjaia  (conip.  Eph.  iii.  12).  It  cannot  be  accurately  said 
that  ^ue  enter  God's  presence  with  the  blood  of  Jesus,  but  He  with  His  own  blood  (vi.  20  ;  ix. 
12). 

2  "New,"  ix.  8,  12  ;  "Living,"  not  in  the  sense  of  "  life-giving  "  (Grotuis,  etc.),  or  "en- 
during" (Chrysostom),  or  "real,"  but  because  '"He  who  liveth  "  is  Himself  the  Way  (Jolm 
xiv.  6). 

3  As  the  veil  hung  between  the  Holy  and  the  Holiest,  so  for  a  time  the  veil  of  flesh,  i.e., 
of  suffering  humanity,  was  the  way  through  which  Christ  entered  into  the  Holiest  (see  vi.  20}  ; 
and  His  laying  aside  that  veil  of  Flesh,  and  so,  as  it  were,  passing  through  it  into  Heaven,  was 
symbolised  by  the  rendering  of  the  Parbketh  (see  on  chap.  ix.  3),  Matt,  xxvii.  51. 

4  See  iv.  14.  By  "  a  great  Priest "  {co/ti-n  gadol,  Lev.  xxi)  is  meant  not  only  a  High  Priest, 
but  "a  Priest  upon  His  throne,"  as  in  Zech.  vi.  n-13. 


286  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

body  washed  with  pure  water.*  Let  us  holdfast  the  confession  of  our  Hope3 
unwavering,  for  faithful  is  He  who  promised. 3  And  let  us  consider  one  another 
for  provocation^  to  love  and  good  works,  not  deserting  the  assembling  of  our- 
selves together.^  as  is  the  custom  with  some.s  but  ejicouraging  one  another,  and 
so  much  the  more  as  ye  see  the  day  approaching. '' 

"  For  if  we  sin  willingly^  after  the  receiving  of  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth,' 
there  is  no  longer  left  a  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  expectance  of 
judgment, •"  and  a  jealousy  of  fire  which  is  about  to  devour  the  adversaries.!* 
Any  one  who  set  at  nought  Moses'  Law  is  without  compassion  put  to  death  on 
the' testimony  of  two  or  three  witnesses  ;  of  how  much  worse  vengeance, 12  think 
ye,  shall  he  be  deemed  worthy  who  has  trampled  under  foot  the  Son  of  God, 
and  considered  the  blood  of  the  Covenant  wherewith  he  was  sanctified  a  com- 
mon thing,  and  insulted  the  Spirit  of  Grace  ?*3     For  we  know  Him  who  said 


1  Comp.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.  The  meaning  is,  "  with  our  hearts  sprinkled,  as  it  were,  with 
the  blood  of  Christ  (xii.  24  ;  ix.  14  ;  i  Pet.  i.  2),  and  so  cleansed  from  a  conscience  which  has 
become  depraved,  and  our  whole  beings  cleansed  m  the  waters  of  baptism"  (Eph.  v.  26  ;  'I'it, 
iii.  5  ;  I  Pet.  iii.  21'),  just  as  the  Jewish  priests  were  sprinkled  with  blood  (F-x.  xxix.  21  ;  Lev. 
viii.  30).  and  bathed  (Ex.  xxx.  20  ;  Lev.  viii.  6 ;  xvi.  4)  before  they  could  enter  the  Holy 
Places;  eppavTianivot  .  .  .  \e\ovnevQi.,  "sprinkled  .  .  .  washed,  once  and  forever."  For 
all  Christians  are  priests  (Rev.  i.  5,  6). 

2  See  vi.  11,  18,  19.  Here,  by  a  very  singular  oversight,  our  version  has  "the  profession 
of  o\xr  faitkr  We  have  "Faith"  in  ver.  22  ;  "Hope"  here  :  and  "Love"  in  ver.  24.  In 
this,  as  throughout  the  Epistle,  we  recognise  the  friend  and  pupil  of  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  xiii.  13  ; 
1  Thess.  i.  3  ;  Col.  i.  4,  etc.).  3  See  vi.  13  ;    xi.  11  ;  xii.  26  ;  i  Thess.  v.  24  ;  i  Cor.  i.  9. 

*  Ilapofya-fto;  is  generally  used  in  a  bad  sense,  like  "provocation  ;  "  and  perhaps  he  uses 
the  word  because  there  had  been  among  them  -^  fiaroxtismos  of  hatred  and  not  of  love. 

6  Namely,  in  Christian  gatherings  for  worship  and  Holy  Communion.  'ETTKrvvaywyi^  is 
only  found  in  i  Thess.  ii.  i,  and  Delitzsch  thinks  that  the  word  is  here  selected  to  avoid  the 
Jewish  o-urayoj-y^  ;   for  the  Jews  also  were  stringent  in  requiring  this  duty  (Berachoth,  f.  8,  a). 

*  In  this  ne^lectfulness  he  saw  the  dangerous  germ  of  apostasy. 

■^  X.  19-25.  The  day  is  the  Last  Day  when  Time,  as  counted  by  days,  shall  end  (i  Cor. 
iii.  13).  That  Day,  as  regards  the  Old  Covenant,  came  within  a  few  years  of  this  time  at  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  God's  judgment  on  the  Judaism  which  refused  to  recognise  its 
own  Divine  annulment.  And  that  Day  of  the  Lord  was  "  the  bloody  and  fiery  dawn"  of  the 
Last  Cireat  I^ay  (Matt.  xvi.  28  ;  xxiv.;  Luke  xvii.). 

"  The  whole  of  this  striking  clause  of  warning  clo.sely  resembles  the  passage  on  vi.  4-8, 
where  see  the  notes.  _It  contemplates  not  the  ordinary  sins  and  shortcomings  of  human  frailty 
(iorfleVeia  .  .  .  a.-yvoo\)VTf.<;  .  .  .  -n-Aai/oi/xeVoi,  v.  2),  which  may  be  forgiven  upon  repentance, 
but  the  last  extreme  of  deliberate  and  self-chosen  wickedness  in  those  who  say  "Evil,  be  thou 
my  good,"  and  who  thus  close  the  door  of  repentance  ag.-iinst  themselves,  by  passing  from  the 
spiritual  life  into  impenitent  and  determined  apostasy  ;  and  it  contemplates  this  state  as  con- 
tinued till  "  the  Day"  comfs.  The  warning  is  agaTnst  tendencies  so  perilous  that  they  might 
end  in  a  state  of  sin  which  deliberately  despised  and  rejected.its  Saviour. 

» 'En-iYi/axTt?— not  a  mere  histcjrical  knowledge  of  the  truth,  but  some  advance  in  that 
knowledge— a  recognition  of  the  truth  at  once  theoretical  and  practical.  He  is  speaking,  not 
of  lip-Christians,  but  of  converts  who  lapse  into  "  wretchlessness  of  unclean  living."  The  pas- 
sage has  nothing  directly  to  do  with  the  Novatian  dispute  about  the  possibility  of  a  second 
baptism.  Nor  does  it  say  that  the  sinner  has  exhausted  the  infinitude  of  God's  forgiveness, 
but  only  that  there  is  no  other  sacrifice  for  .sin  left  for  him  except  that  which  he  has  willingly 
rejected.  10  'I'he  rt?  is  intensive. 

"  .See  Is.  xxiy.  11.  He  personifies  the  fire,  beeause  the  same  thought  is  in  his  mind  wbith 
he  expresses  in  xii.  29.  Perhaps,  Coo,  he  is  referring  to  such  passages  as  Ps.  Ixxix.  5,  "  Shall 
thy  jealousy  burn  like  fire?"  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  5,  etc.).  The  fire  of  God's  wrath  is  that  which  was 
soon  to  devour  the  whole  existence  of  Judaism.  The  New  Testament  writers  are  often  allud- 
iiig  primarily  to  these  consequences  with  none  of  those  further  allusions  which  have  been  intro- 
duced into  the  interpretation  of  their  language. 

'2  Deut.  xvii.  2-7,  where  the  sin  to  be  punished  is  idolatry.  This  is  the  only  passage  in  the 
New  Jcstamcnt  where  Ti/iwpi'a— which  properly  means  retributive  or  vindictive  punishment— 
'*.  "sed  of  God.  The  word  "  punishment"  is  elsewhere  KoAao-is,  which  properly  means  "  reme- 
dial punishment."  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  (i)  it  is  here  applied  to  the  worst,  deadliest, 
and  most  impenitent  apostates  ;  and  (2)  that  its  immediate  reference  is  to  the  Day  of  Christ's 
coming,  which  was  .so  close  at  hand  in  the  temporal  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  polity  (Ewald, 
iiendschr.  an.  d.  Hebr.  p.  122). 

"it  IS  clear  that  no  more  violent  extremity  of  sin— no  nearer  approach  to  the  unpanlonable 
sin.  the  sm  against  the  Holy  Ghost— can  be  described  than  that  which  is  contemplated  in  these 
verses.  Hy"a  common  thine"  may  be  meant  either  "  unclean"  (Vulg.,  Luther,  etc.)  or 
*'  of  no  specific  value"  (  Thcophyl.,  cic). 


THE   KPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  287 

Retribution  is  Mine;  I  will  repay,  snith  tlic  I^rd  ;'  and  again,  The  Lord  sliall 
judge  His  people,'*  Fearful  is  it  to^  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Living  God" 
(X.  19-31)- 

••  But  recall  the  former  days^  in  which,  after  being  enlightened,* ye  endured 
much  struggle  of  sufferings,  partly  by  being  made  a  public  si^ectacle"  in  re- 
proaches and  afflictions,  and  partly  by  becoming  partakers  with  those  who  were 
thus  treated.  For  indeed  ye  sympathised  with  the  prisoners, ^  and  ye  accepted 
with  joy  the  plundering  of  your  possessions,'*  recognising  that  ye  have  your- 
selves'^ ?A  a  better  possession  and  an  enduring.  Fling  not  away,  then,  your 
confidence,  since  it  has  ">  a  great  recompense  of  reward.  For  ye  have  need  of 
endurance,  in  order  that,  by  doing  the  will  of  God,  ye  may  win  the  promise. 
For  yet  but  a  very,  very  little  while, '^  He  who  cometh  will  have  come,  and  will 
not  tarry. i'^     But  my  righteous  one  shall  live  by  faith,"  and  '  if  he'^  draw  back 


J  He  quotes  this  text  to  show  that  his  wnmings  arc  founded  oti  .Scriptrire  w.imnt.  The  ref- 
erence is  to  Deut.  xxxii.  35,  but  it  exactly  follows  neither  tlie  Hebrew  ('•  To  me  L>sl  vengeance 
and  recompense")  nor  the  LXX.  ("in  the  day  of  retribution  I  will  requite'").  It  /x  exactly 
identical  with  St.  Paul's  citation  of  the  same  verse  in  Rom.  xii.  19,  especially  if  "'  saith  the 
Lord  "  is  here  genuine  (which  is,  however,  omitted  by  }«{,  D,  and  serveml  versions  and 
Fathers).  An  argument  has  been  drawn  from  this  fact  that  St.  Paul  must  be  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  b\it  this  argument  is  untenable,  because  (i)  it  is  universally  ad- 
mitted that  the  writer  was  a  friend  and  follower  of  .St,  Paul,  and  familiar  with  his  phraseology 
and  method  of  thought ;  (2)  he  may  very  possibly  have  had  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  his 
hands,  especially  as  in  xiii.  1-6  h';  shows  traces  of  Rom.  xii.  1-21  (see  Alford,  Introd.  p.  71)  ; 
and  (3)  the  quotation  in  this  very  form,  or  one  which  nearly  resembles  it,  seems  to  have  been 
current  in  the  Jewish  schools,  for  it  is  found  in  the  Targiim  of  Onkelos.  The  reference  to 
Deuteronomy  shows  that  he  is  thinking  mainly  of /z^/^z/rt/ punishments. 

2  The  primary  sense  of  these  words  in  Deut.  xxxii.  36,  "Uhe  Lord  will  deliver  His  people 
as  a  righteous  Judge  ;  "  but  judgment  involves  both  acquittal  and  condemnation,  and  the  de- 
liverance of  the  Jews  meant  the  overthrow  of  their  enemies. 

3  Here  again  the  stern  aspect  of  "falling  into  the  hands  of  God  "  is  given — the  aspect 
which  it  bears  "for  the  apostate  and  covenant-breriker"  who  has  deliberately  rc^'ecied  and 
defied  God.  For  the  penitent  sinner  there  is  another  aspect  David,  expecting  and  bowing 
to  just  punishment,  yet  says  (1  Chr.  xxi,  13),  "  Let  yiie  fall  noti'  into  the  /taud  0/  the  Lord ; 
for  very  great  are  His  mercies  :  but  let  me  not  fall  into  the  hand  of  man."  And  the  son  of 
Sirach,  referring  to  the  same  passage,  says  ( Ecclus.  ii.  18),  "We  will  fall  into  the  hands  of 
the  Lord,  and  not  into  the  hands  of  men;  for  as  His  majesty  i.s,  so  is  His  mercy."  Some 
would  render  it  of  "  a  Ihnng-God"  (comp.  iii.  12)  ;  and  this  may  be  right,  because  there  is  a 
silent  reference  to  Deut.  xxxii.  40, 

*  Here,  as  in  vi.  9-12,  he  passes  from  warning  to  encouragement,  and  bids  them  imitate 
their  former  and  better  selves. 

-5  This  word  is  not  a  mere  synonym  for  "  when  ye  were  baptised  "  (sec  on  vi.  4). 

*  The  same  metaphor  as  in  i  Cor.  iv,  9  ;  xv.  32. 

'  The  common  reading  is  toi?  Seo-juot?  (lov,  ''with  my  chains  ;  "  and  this  has  been  one  of  the 
circumstances  which  have  led  to  the  identification  of  the  author  with  St.  Paul.  Hut  this  read- 
ing may  easily  have  crept  in  from  Col.  iv.  j8  ;  Phil.  i.  7,  etc.,  and  iicr(iioi<;,  "  with  the  pris- 
oners," is  the  reading  of  A,  D,  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  and  Coptic  versions,  St.  Chrysostom,  etc., 
and  is  strongly  supported  by  xiii.  3.     Italso  suggests  fewer  historical  difficulties. 

«  There  is  a  veiy  striking  parallel  in  Epictetus— "  I  became  poor  at  Thy  will,  yea  and 
gladly." 

«  I  here  follow  the  very  striking  and  beautiful  reading  of^X.  A,  which  suggests  the  same 
great  spiritual  truth  as  vcr.  39  and  J.uke  ix,  ?5,  xxi.  19.  If  ev  eavTois,  the  very  ill-supported 
reading  of  our  text,  be  followed,  the  tnie  translation  will  even  then  be,  not  (as  m  our  version) 
"  knowing  in  yourselves  that,"  but  "^  knowing  that  you  have  in  yourseh'et"  i.e.,  in  your  own 
hearts,  or  omitting  the  e»/  with  A,  D,  E,  K,  L,  "for  yourselves."  The  "  in  Heaven"  mu:.t 
in  any  case  be  omitted  as  a  gloss  (X,  A,  D,  etc.).  '"  »JTi?,  qui/>pe  quae. 

11  fiiKpbv  bcrov  baov.    This  forcible  phrase  is  borrowed  from  LXX.  Ls.  xxvi.  20. 

1'  I'he  quotation  is  an  adaptation  of  the  words  of  Hab.  ii.  3,  4.  For  a  fuller  consideration 
of  it,  as  it  occurs  in  Gal.  iii.  11,  Rom,  i.  17,  see  my  Lt/e  0/ St.  Faul,  i.  369.  ITie  ti.ov  ("  ;//y 
just  man")  is  weakly  supported  by  MS,  authority,  being  only  found  in  {<,  A  ;  but  the  fat 
that  it  is  7tot  found  in  the  two  citations  by  St.  Paul  makes  it  more  probable  that  it  is  ccniiinc 
here.  In  the  original  it  is  "  the  vision'"  which  will  soon  come.  The  Rabbis  said  that  into 
this  one  precept  as  to  the  saving  nature  of  faith,  Habakkiik  has  compressed  the  365 
negative  and  the  248  positive  precepts  of  the  Law,  which  David  had  reduced  to  11  (Ps.  xv. 
1-5),  Isaiah  to  6  (Is.  xxxiii.  15),  Micah  to  3  (Mic.  vi.  8).  Isaiah  again  to  2  (Is.  Ivi.  i),  and 
Amos,  as  well  as  Habakkuk,  to  1  (.-Vmos  v.  4)  [Maccoth,  f.  23,  b  ;  f.  24,  a). 

13  "  If  he,"  i.e.,  "  if  my  just  man."  The  E.  V.  inserts  "  if  any  man,''  but  this  is  not  war- 
rantable, and  as  it  is  only  found  in  the  Genevan  Version,  there  is  some  reason  to  fear  that  this 


2SS  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

My  soul  approveth  him  not.'  But  we  are  not  of  defection  unto  perdition,  but 
of  faith  unto  the  gaining  of  the  soul  "»  (x,  32—39), 

We  are  not  of  defection  unto  perdition — we  do  not  belong 
to  the  party  of  those  who  have  passed  over  the  verge  of  apos- 
•tasy,  to  the  ruin  of  their  souls;   "but  we  are  of  faith  to  the 
salvation  of  the  soul."     What,  then,  is  Faith? 

SECTION   VIII. 

THE   GLORIES    OF   FAITH. 

By  his  mention  of  the  word  Faith  in  this  climax  of  ex- 
hortation, the  writer,  with  the  skill  of  a  great  orator,  prepares 
the  way  for  the  enumeration  of  the  heroes  of  faith  in  the  next 
chapter.  And  this  muster  roll  of  the  elders  of  the  Jewish 
Church  is  by  no  means  intended  only  as  a  series  of  good  ex-- 
amples.  It  serves  a  more  powerful  end.  It  shows  the  Jewish 
converts,  who  were  in  danger  of  relapsing  into  their  old  bond- 
age, that  there  was  no  painful  discontinuity  in  their  religious 
life;  no  harsh  break  between  their  present  hopes  and  the  past 
hi.story  of  their  race.  The  past  was  not  discarded  and  dis- 
graced; it  was  fulfilled  and  glorified.  So  far  from  being  dis- 
severed from  the  gracious  lives  of  the  Patriarchs,  and  the 
splendid  zeal  of  the  Prophets,  they  were  infinitely  nearer  to 
them  as  Christians  than  they  could  have  been  as  Jews.  They 
were  in  possession  of  the  mystery  on  which  the  elders  had 
gazed  with  longing  eyes,  and  were  better  able  than  their  un- 
converted brethren  to  understand  the  inmost  heart  of  their 
fathers.  Physical  descent,  and  identity  of  worship,  could  not 
enable  them  to  know  the  meaning  of  the  faith  displayed  in  the 
ante-Diluvian,  the  Patriarchal,  and  the  Mosaic  days.  But 
Faith  in  Christ  was  the  sunlike  centre  of  all  the  types,  and 
symbols,  and  sacrifices,  and  promises  which  constituted  the 
religion  of  the  Chosen  People  until  Christ  came. 

What,  then,  is  faith? 

It  is  nowhere  defined  in  Scripture,  and  the  famous  words 
with  which  this  chapter  opens  are  not  so  much  a  definition  as 
a  description.  They  are  not  a  definition,  for  they  do  not,  as 
St.  Thomas  Aquinas  says,  indicate  the  essence  of  Faith.    They 

is  one  of  the  very  rare  instances  in  wliich  our  translators  have  yielded  to  the  temptation  of 
doi{matic  bi:is.  hut  the  hchef  that  "  the  just"  nmy  fall  hack  runs  throughout  the  Epistle. 
I  here  is  not  in  it  a  sin«lc  trace  of  the  notion  of  "  indefectible  grace,"  or  of  "  final  persever- 


ance. 


'For  tins  word  i/»ro(rr«iA7,Tat  sec  Acts  xx.  20,  27  ;  Gal.  ii.  12.     In  these  words  the  I,XX. 
diverge  widely  from  the  Hebrew,  which  means  "  Behold  his  soul  is  lifted  up,  it  is  not  upright 
I'V"!! ,  ~**"'*'*  wn'ch  seem  to  refer  to  the  haughty  Chaldean  invader.     The  word  rendered 
faith      means  >n  the  language  of  the  Prophet,  primarily  "faithfulness." 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  289 

tell  us  what  Faith  docs,  rather  than  what  it  is — its  issues,  rather 
than  its  nature.  "Faith,"  the  writer  says,  "is  the  basis  of 
things  hoped  for,'  the  demonstration  of  objects  not  seen.'"^ 
This  is  what  faith  is  in  its  results.  It  furnishes  us  with  a  foun- 
dation on  which  our  hopes  can  securely  rest,  and  with  a  con- 
viction that  those  things  exist  which  are  not  earthly  or  tempo- 
ral, and  which,  therefore,  we  cannot  see.  Faith  itself — not  in 
the  highest  Pauline  sense,  but  in  its  more  usual  sense* — is  the 
spiritual  power  by  which  we  are  enabled  to  occupy  this  sure 
foundation,  and  arrive- at  this  firm  persuasion.  It  is  the  hand 
stretched  forth  into  that  Holiest  Place  which  is  as  yet  hidden 
from  us  by  the  veil  of  sense — the  hand  which  can  hold  the 
spiritual  gifts  of  God  with  so  sure  a  grasp  that  it  can  never  be 
deprived  of  them.  To  the  eye  of  Faith  the  unseen  and  the 
eternal  are  more  real  than  the  things  seen  and  temporal.  To 
the  heart  of  Faith  hopes  are  as  actual  as  realities,  and  heavenly 
promises  are  more  precious  than  earthly  possessions.  To  the 
eyes  of  the  unilluminated  heart  the  region  in  which  Faith  lives 
and  moves  is  a  dark  cavern  where  nothing  is  even  visible, 
much  less  can  anything  be  beautiful;  but  Faith  carries  in  her 
hand  a  lamp,  kindled  with  light  from  Heaven,  and  wherever 
she  moves  an  atmosphere  of  light  is  shed  around  her,  and 
under  every  ray  of  it  the  streets  and  walls  of  the  New  Jerusa- 
lem seem  to  flash  as  with  innumerable  gems. 

It  was  then  a  great  encouragement  and  safeguard  for  these 
recent  converts  to  know  that  it  was   by  Faith  that  the  el- 

1  iijroa-Taat?.  This  word  "hypostasis"  occurs  only  in  2  Cor.  ix.  4;  xi.  17  ("confident 
boasting") ;  Heb.  i.  3  ("substance")  ;  iii.  14  ("confidence").  Here  it  has  been  variously  un- 
derstood to  mean  (i)  the  "substance,"  in  the  metaphysical  sense  ;  that  unseen  substance  in 
which  all  properties  of  a  thing  cohere  ;  that  which  '^  stands  under"  all  the  visible  or  sensible 
qualities  of  a  thing — its  essence;  that,  therefore,  which  alone  gives  it  reality.  _^Thus_  among 
others  Theophylact,  who  calls  it  the  ovcriuxris  twj'  /aTjrrw  oi'twi'  koX  vnotTTacrti  tS)v  /u.tj  v^ecrrof 
Tojv,  and  Ewald  {"  Besta>id  in  de»i  7tias  man  hofft"^.  It  would  thus  mean  the  cause  of  the 
subjective  reality  of  things  hoped  for ;  or,  as  Dr.  Moulton  says,  "  the  giving  substance  to 
them;"  or  (2)  "  confidence ;"  or  (3)  as  understood  by  Luther,  Grotius,  Bleek,  Delitzsch, 
De  Wette,  Ebrard,  Lunemann,  etc.,  "  foundatioft."  This  latter  rendering  seems  to  me  the 
best.  It  is  true  that  it  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  iii.  14,  nor  i.  3,  and  the  LXX.  use  it 
for  "  standing"  in  Ps.  Ixix.  2  (see  Dante.  Paradtso,  xxiv.  52-81).  St.  Jerome  says  that  this 
clause  "breathes  somewhat  of  Philo,"  who  similarly  speaks  of  "  faith  as  dependent  on  a  gra- 
cious hope,  and  regarding  things  not  present  as  being  indubitably  present,"  and  as  '"  the  ful- 
ness of  excellent  hopes  .  .   .   the  lot  of  happiness  .  .  .   the  sole  genuine  and  secure  blessing." 

2  If  we  could  render  the  word  "inward  conviction,"  it  would  give  a  more  forcible  sense, 
and  perhaps  this  is  implied,  though  the  word  usually  bears  the  more  objective  meaniiig  of 
"demonstration."  The  use  of  the  word  npayfiaTotv  in  this  clause  seems  to  imply  that  Faith 
not  only  makes  Hope  seem  to  rest  on  a  basis  of  actual  fruition,  but  also  demonstrates  the  ex- 
istence of  the  immaterial  as  clearly  as  though  it  were  material.  Ewald  renders  it,  "  Es  ist 
aber  Glaube.  .  .   Beweis  fiir  Dinge  welche  man  nicht  schauet." 

3  For  the  distinctions  in  the  meaning  of  Faith,  see  suj>ra,  p.  201,  and  my  Life  of  St.  Paul, 
ii.  i88,  sq.  Here  the  writer  uses  the  word,  not  in  its  specifically  Christian  sense  (Gal.  ii.  16  ; 
iii.  26  ;  Rom.  iii.  24),  but  in  its  general  Old  Testament  sense  of  faithfulness  resulting  from 
ttust  in  God  (Gen.  xv.  6,  etc.),  as  also  somefWnes  in  St.  Paul  (2  Cor.  v.  7  ;  Rom.  viii.  24-25). 
In  this  sense  it  is  the  hope  which,  without  seeing,  holds  the  ideal  to  be  the  real  (fmmer,  Neu. 
Test.  Theol.  p.  413). 

19 


290  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ders'  obtained  a  good  report— that  they,  too,  had  to  walk  by 
Faith,  and  not  by  sight,  and  that  the  object  of  Faith  was  the 
same  then  as  now,  with  this  only  difference,  that  then  it  was 
dim  and  unrevealed,  but  now  was  made  fully  manifest.  For 
the  object  of  the  faith  of  the  righteous— even  from  the  days  in 
which  it  had  been  promised  in  Paradise  that  the  seed  of  the 
woman  should  break  the  serpent's  head— was  none  other  than 
the  Christ.  To  the  ancients  He  had  been  known  solely  under 
the  guise  of  type  and  shadow,  but  now  He  was  set  forth  to  all 
as  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory  and  the  express  image 
of  His  person. 

But  before  beginning  his  list  of  worthies,  he  says, 

"  By  faith  we  perceive  that  the  ages^  have  been  established  by  tht  utterance 
of  God, 3  so  that  not  from  things  which  appear  hath  that  which  is  seen  come 
into  being  ■■*  (xi.  3). 

It  is  a  mistake  to  regard  this  verse  as  incongruous  with  those 
which  follow,  or  as  introducing  a  different  line  of  illustration 
from  them.  On  the  contrary,  it  strikes  the  keynote  of  all  faith. 
Faith  can  only  take  its  origin  from  the  belief  in  God  as  the 
Creator  of  the  Universe,  and  of  the  very  substance  from  which 
the  material  Universe  is  made,  so  as  to  exclude  all  semi-Mani- 
chaean  conceptions  of  the  Eternity  of  matter.  We  cannot  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  the  end  of  our  Faith,  nor  can  we  in  any  way 
understand  His  work,  until  we  have  learnt  to  believe  in  God 
as  the  Infinite  Creator  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible.  And 
this  belief  was,  from  the  dawn  of  Humanity,  the  foundation 
of  all  holiness.     Like  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  the  verse  is 

'  By  the  elders  is  not  meant  merely  "  the  ancients,"  but  the  Zekcnim,  the  greatest  and 
best  men  of  past  ages  (Is.  xxiv.  22,  etc.).  "  One  who  is  in  truth  an  elder  is  regarded,"  says 
Philo,  "not  in  distance  of  time,  but  in  worthiness  of  life"  {De  Ahrahain^  %  46). 

'•'  Sec  Philo,  De  Monarch,  ii.  p.  823  ;  Le,^.  allegg.  iii.  p.  79  ;  De  Cherub,  i.  p.  162  (ed. 
Mangey),  where  tlie  Logos  is  the  Instrument  of  Creation.  01  atwve?,  ZT'X^'S  ("the  ages"), 
is  the  wfirld  regarded  in  its  history,  regarded  as  existing  in  time.  It  differs  from  "the  Uni- 
verse "  {k(xt\lq%),  which  is  the  world  regarded  in  its  material  aspect  (see  the  quotation  from  the 
Talmud  in  Gescnius,  Thes.  II.  1056).  This  expression,  therefore,  includes  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  as  well  as  its  creation  (see  i.  2)  ;  '"  the  invisible,  spiritual,  and  permanent 
potencies  of  the  phenomenal  world  which  owe  their  origin  to  the  Son  of  God  "  (Moll). 

'It  IS  hardly  to  be  doubted  that  the  writer  means  no  more  here  than  that  "  God  spake, 
and  It  was  done"  (Aeywf  a^a  eiroiei— Philo,  De  Sacr.  Abel  et  Cain,  §18).  Had  he  meant  to 
im|4y  that  fiod  created  the  world  by  the  Divine  Logos,  he  would  have  used  the  word  Adyu), 
not  pFJ^aTt.  especially  as  the  T>XX.  use  it  in  Ps.  xxxii.  6.  Even  in  iv.  12  it  is  more  than 
doubttiil  whether  I-ojos  bears  its  technical  sense. 

«  I  read  to  ^ktnofLtvov  with  J<,  A,  D.  K  Tlie  wording  of  the  phrase  and  its  meaning  may 
seem  harsher  than  the  rendering  of  the  E.  V.,  but  it  is  the  only  renderins;  of  which  the  order 
of  the  ( ircck  admits,  and  the  nit-aning  is  that  "  the  visible  world  did  not  derive  its  origin  from 
anythin;;  phenomenal"— in  other  words,  that  there  was  no  pre-existent  matter  from  which  God 
in.idc  the  world— not  even  the  wild  waste,  "  thohu  va-bohu,"  of  the  chaos  mentioned  in  Clen. 
I.  2.  The  mcanmji  then,  is  pr.ictically  identical  with  2  Mace.  vii.  28  (reading  ef  ovk  ovru)v), 
"  I  beseech  thee,  my  son.  lock  upon  the  heaven  and  earth,  and  all  that  is  therein,  and  con- 
wJcr  that  Cod  made  them  0/ things  that  W€re  not." 


THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  29 1 

meant  to  exclude  from  the  region  of  faith  ail  Atheism,  Pan- 
theism, Dualism,  or  Polytheism,  and  to  fix  the  soul  on  the 
thought  of  the  One  True  God. 

Then  he  begins  to  adduce  his  handful  of  illustrations — 
"plucking,  so  to  speak,  only  the  flowers  which  stand  by  his 
way,  and  leaving  the  whole  meadow  full  to  his  readers.'"  And 
he  first  culls  examples  from  the  antediluvian  days  to  show  that 
the  Faith  which  Christ  required  was  analogous  to  the  Faith 
which  had  worked  in  every  holy  soul  since  the  world  began. 

It  was  by  faith,  then,  that  Abel  offered  to  God  a  sacrifice 
which  was  "more  than  that  of  Cain,""''  and  was  borne  witness 
to  as  being  Righteous'"' — since  God  bore  witness  respecting 
his  gifts,  and  so,  by  his  faith,  he  though  dead  yet  speaketh.* 
It  was  by  faith  that  Enoch  was  removed  hence,'  because  he 
had  that  faith  both  in  Ciod's  Being  and  in  His  Divine  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please 
Him.  By  faith  Noah  built  the  Ark,  and  became  an  heir  of 
the  Righteouness  which  is  according  to  faith. '^  By  faith  Abra- 
ham, when  called  by  God,^  left  his  home  in  Ur  of  the  Chal- 
dees  to  w^ander  as  a  nomad  Sheikh  in  a  land  not  yet  his  own, 
awaiting  the  city  that  hath  the  foundations®  whose  architect 
and  framer  was  God.^  By  faith  even  Sarah"'  became  a  mother 
of  him  from  whom  sprang  people  numberless  as  the  sand  along 


1  Delitzsch.  The  chapter  falls  into  five  groups  of  instances  : — (i.)  Antedihiyians  (4-6)  ; 
(ii.)  from  Noah  to  Abraham  (7-13).  Then  follows  a  general  reflexion  {13-16)  ;  (iii.)  Abraham 
and  the  Patriarchs  ;  (iv.)  from  Moses  to  Rahab ;  (v.)  summary  reference  to  later  heroes  and 
martyrs  down  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  (32-40). 

2  Ver.  4.  nkeiova  irapa  KaiV  (comp.  iii.  3  ;  Matt.  vi.  25).  The  exact  point  in  which  the 
sacrifice  of  Abel  was  superior  to  Cain's  is  left  uncertain,  though  not  difficult  to  conjecture. 

3  By  God's  approval  of  his  sacrifice  (Gen.  iv.  4).  He  is  called  "  righteous  "  in  MatU  xxiii. 
35  ;   I  John  iii.  12. 

•*  Primarily,  an  allusion  to  "  the  voice  of  his  blood"  (Gen.  iv.  10),  as  seems  probable  from 
xii.  24,  but  hardly  excluding  the  wider  sense,  in  which  it  is  so  often  quoted,  of  *•  speaking  by 
his  example."  Another  reading  is  AoAetrai  (D),  "  is  spoken  of"  :  but  here,  again,  the  writer 
seems  to  be  thinking  of  a  passage  of  Philo,  where  he  says  that  "Abel— which  is  most  strange 
— lias  both  been  slain,  and  lives,"  which  he  deduces  from  Gen.  iv.  8-10  (0/ji.  i.  200,  ed. 
Mangey).  ^  xi.  5,  fieTereOrf ;  lit.,  "  he  was  transferred  "  (Gen.  v.  24). 

6  Noah  is  called  Righteous  {tsaddik,  SiKoio^)  in  Gen.  vi,  9  ;  and,  as  Philo  observes,  he  is 
the  first  to  vvhom  the  tide  is  given  in  Scripture.  He  is  mistaken  in  making  the  ua>//e  Noah 
mean  ^-ighteous  [Le^:  aUeg:g.  iii.  24).  The  '-righteousness  according  to  faith,"  is  a  very 
Pauline-sounding  phrase,  though  St.  Paul  never  actually  uses  it.  He  uses,  however,  '  the 
righteousness  .^/faith  "  (Rom.  iv.  13J.  The  phrase  could  hardly  have  been  used  by  one  un- 
familiar with  St.  Paul's  terminology;  but  the  writer  shows  his  own  marked  uidividuality  bv 
applying  both  words,  •'  Righteousness"  and  "  Faith,"  in  a  sense  by  no  means  identical  with 
that  of  St.  Paul,  but  strongly  marked  with  his  own  views  (see  supra,  pp.  201,  202). 

''  Ver.  8.  I  read  /coAov/Ltej'os  with  most  uncials.  H,  however.  6  k.  be  the  right  reading  (^, 
A.  D),  the  meaning  can  only  be  "  he  who  was  called  Abraham,"  with  a  reference  to  the  change 
of  his  name  from  Abram.  This  is  by  no  means  impossible  (.soTheodoret).  The  faith  of  Abra- 
ham was  one  of  the  commonest  topics  of  eulogy  and  discussion  in  the  Rabbinic  schools. 

8  Ver.  10.  Not  Jerusalem  (Ps.  xlvi.  5  ;  Ixxxvii.  i  ;  Rev.  xxi.  10),  but  "  the  Jerusalem 
above"  (xii.  22  ;  xiii.  14).     The  same  thought  and  expression  occurs  often  in  Philo. 

0  Philo  in  several  places  speaks  of  (iod  as  the  Architect  (tcxi'iVt)?)  of  the  world  ;  and  this 
is  one  of  the  resemblances  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (Wisd.  xiii.  i). 

10  Even  Sarah,  though  once  she  laughed. 


292  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  lip  of  the  sea.'  The  death  of  all  these  resembled  their 
lives,  for  they  all  died  in  accordance  with  faith,  not  having 
received  the  ^fruition  of  the)  promises  made  to  them,^  but 
having-  seen  that  fruition  from  afar,  and  greeted  it,^  and 
acknowledged  that  human  life  is  but  a  sojourn  in  an  alien 
country.'  Such  language  showed  clearly  that  they  were  look- 
ing for  a  fatherland;  and  this  was  not  the  land  which  they  had 
left,  for,  had  this  been  all,  they  could  easily  have  returned  to 
it.  But  they  were  yearning  for  a  better — a  heavenly  country; 
and  because  they  were  thus  homesick  their  Father  was  not 
ashamed  of  them,  not  ashamed  to  be  entitled  their  God  (Gen. 
xvii.  7;  xxvi.  24;  xxviii.  13,  etc.),  for  He  prepared  for  them  a 
city. 

Then,  returning  to  Abraham,  he  dwells  on  the  faith  he 
showed  in  the  willingness  to  offer  up  his  son,  his  only  son, 
whom  in  will  he  so  absolutely  sacrificed  that,  typically  speak- 
ing," he  received  him  back  only  from  the  dead.  By  faith  Isaac 
blessed  Jacob  and  Esau,  even  respecting  things  future.^  By 
faith  Jacob  on  his  deathbed  blessed  each  of  the  sons  of  Joseph,^ 
and  bowed  his  head  to  God  as  he  leaned  over  the  top  of  his 
staff."  By  faith  Joseph  felt  so  sure  that  God  would  fulfil  His 
promises  that  he  bade  the  children  of  Israel  carry  back  his 

'  Dr.  Field  seems  to  tliink  that  koX  o.vTr\  ^dppa  may  be  a  gloss  :  for  (i  )  ereKev  is  not  found 
in  X.  A.  D;  (ii.)  from  the  reference  to  Abraham  in  Rom.  iv.  8 ;  (iii.)  because  Kara^oKi]  prop- 
erly applies  to  the  male. 

2  Ihey  had  received  the  promises  in  one  sense  {eKOfiCvavTo) ,  but  not  in  another  (  ov  \a^6v- 
T«si.     See  ix.  15.  3  See  Gen.  xhx.  19  ;  John  viii.  56. 

*  Gen.  xxiii.  4  ;  xlvii.  g  ;  1  Chron.  xxix.  15  ;   Ps.  xxxix.  12,  etc. 

8  Ver.  19.  Elsewherein  the  Epistle  bOeu  means  "  for  which  reason."  The  meaning  of  the 
words  tv  TTapa.SoXrj  has  bSen  much  disputed,  (i)  Some  take  it  to  mean  "unexpectedly"  (as 
m  F'.lyhius,  i.  23,  TrapagoAcos),  or  "  in  bold  venture,"  on  the  analogy  of  irapa^dWeaOai—''  to 
un<k-riakc  a  datui^^  rix/,:"  (2)  Luther  erroneously  follows  the  Vul?.  in  rendering  them  "for 
a  type"  [in  parabolam,  zum  Vorbilde).  There  is,  however,  no  doubt  that  it  must  mean  (3) 
"  111  a  figure."  as  in  our  E.  V.  Hut  the  question  then  arises  how  he  can  be  said  to  have  re- 
ceived Isaac  back  "in  a  figure,"  and  not  in  reality?  Omitting  untenable  conjectures,  it  may 
mean  ciihcr  "  as  a  type  of  the  resurrection,"  or  be  taken  as  a  qualification  of  the  "  received 
him  from  the  dead."  Isaac  was,  '^figuratively  speaking,  dead"  when  Abraham  received 
hiin  b.ack.  1  he  form  of  expression  is  unusual,  but  the  Jewish  analogies  seem  to  show  that  this 
IS  the  meaning  here.  (See  the  passages  quoted  by  Wetstein,— in  one  of  them— Pirke  Eliezer, 
3»— "  's  said  that  Isaac  did  actually  die  ;  and  see  Rom.  iv.  17-19.) 

•  Ksau  too  was  blessed.  He  got  the  lower  life  that  he  desired,  though  the  true  rerrdering 
01  (j,cn.  xxvii.  39  is  not  as  m  our  Version,  but  "  Behold,  thy  dwelling  shall  be  away  from  the 
fatness  of  the  earth,  and  ninay  from  the  dew  of  blessing." 

'  Sec  Gen.  xlviii.  14,  17-20. 

"•  llii,  sc.  ms  to  refer,  not  to  the  blessing  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  but  to  Gen,  xlvii.  31. 
In  M.,r  \.r,M;.  it  runs,  "And  Israel  bowed  himself  upon  his  bed's  head."  The  LXX.  and 
J  C-.  1 1. !..  n:  >..!.•  r  it  as  here,  "upon  the  top  of  his  staff;  "  and  the  strange  rendering  of  the  Vul- 
gate, He  (Jao.b)  .adored  the  head  of  his  (Joseph's)  staff,"  has  led  to  the  wildest  vagaries  of 
conjecture,  .-jikI  to  the  defence  of  image-worship  from  this  passage  !  The  main  variation  of 
rcmlcring  arises  only  from  the  fact  that  the  LXX.,  Vulgate,  and  Peshito  understood  the  word 
to  tje  tiuitteh,  •  staff,  not  mittali,  "bed."  as  they  understood  it  two  ver.ses  later  (Gen.  xlviii. 
2).  J.K.'.b  was  lying  m  i)ed.  but,  getting  up  to  take  the  oath  from  [oseph,  supported  his 
trembling  limbs  upon  '  the  staff."  which  was  a  memorable  type  of  his  pilgrimage  (Gen.  xxxii. 
m)    ami,  at  the  end  of  the  oath,  bowed  his  head  over  his  staff  in  sign  of  thanks  and  reverence 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  293 

bones  with  them  from  Egypt  to  the  Promised  Land.'  ]^)y  faith 
Amram  and  Jochebed,  the  parents  of  JMoses,  struck  with  his 
beauty,"  fearlessly  hid  him  for  three  months.  By  faith  Moses 
when  he  grew  up,  undazzled  by  the  rank  and  splendour  of  the 
Egyptian  throne,^  turned  away  his  eyes  to  the  great  reward, 
deliberately  preferring  to  share  in  the  reproach  of  the  Christ* 
with  God's  suffering  people.  By  faith,  with  his  eyes  still  stead- 
fastly fixed  on  the  unseen  King,  he  braved  the  wrath  of  Pha- 
raoh, and  led  his  people  out  of  Egypt. '^  By  faith  he  celebrated' 
the  Passover  and  the  sprinkling  of  blood  that  the  Destroyer 
of  the  firstborn  might  not  touch  them.  By  faith  the  Israelites 
crossed  the  Red  Sea  as  through  dry  land.  It  was  by  their  faith 
that  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell.  It  was  faith^  which  led  Rahab, 
the  heathen  harlot,*  to  receive  their  spies.  And  after  these 
many  examples  of  heroic  faith  exhibited  in  many  particulars 
— Abel,  Enoch,  Noah — Abraham,  Sarah,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Joseph, 
the  parents  of  Moses — Moses,  the  Israelites,  Rahab — what 
need  was  there  to  continue''  the  glorious  enumeration,  and  go 
through  the  deeds  of  Gideon,  Barak,  Samson,  Jephthah, 
David,  Samuel,  and  the  Prophets — 

"  Who,  through  faith  subdued  kingdoms,  wrought  righteousness, i"  obtained 
promises, ^1  stopped  the  mouths  of  lions,'-  quenched  the  power  of  fire, '^  escaped 
the  edges  of  the  sword, 1*  were  strengthened  out  of  weakness, '^  became  mighty 
in  war,  drove  back  the  armies  of  the  aliens,  i"  Women  received  their  dead  by- 
resurrection,"  and  others  were  broken  on  the  wheel, '^  not  accepting  the  offered 

*  Gen.  1.  26  ;  Ex.  xiii.  19  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  32. 

2  Acts  vii.  20,  "  fair  to  God."  His  Divine  beauty  seemed  to  them  a  sign  of  somethmg  re- 
markable.    See  Philo,  Vit.  Mas.  [Opp.  ii.  82). 

3  "  The  son  of  a  daughter  of  Pharaoh,"  i.e.^  the  son  of  a  princess.  The  reference  is  to  the 
Jewish  legend,  which  was  peculiarly  rich  in  details  about  Moses.  It  is  not  recorded  m  Scrip- 
ture, though  it  is  implied.     Comp.  Lk.  iv.  5.  6.  .         . 

4  See  xiii.  13  ;  2  Cor.  i.  5  ;  Col.  i.  24.  "The  reproach  which  Christ  had  to  bear  in  His 
own  person,  and  has  to  bear  in  that  of  His  members  "  (Bleek).  There  is  probably  a  reference 
to  Ps.  Ixxxix.  50,  51.     Comp.  Phil.  iii.  7-1 1. 

s  This  clearly  alludes  to  the  i:xodus.  If  it  alluded  to  his  flight  into  Midian,  it  would  require 
some  violence  to  harmonise  it  with  Ex.  ii.  14.  It  is  true  that  for  the  moment  Pharaoh  con- 
sented to  the  Exodus,  but  it  was  only  in  wrath  and  fear,  and  it  was  certain  that  he  would  pur- 
sue them.  6  por  the  perfect  see  ver.  17,  and  the  notes  on  iv.  7)  'x.  8,  x.  9,  x.  28,  etc. 

■^  It  is  equally  true,  in  another  sense,  that  it  was  by  works.     Jas.  ii.  2s.  ,    ,  i_    r  •  u 

«  The  word  is  to  be  understood  literally  (Matt.  i.  5),  and  its  retention  is  a  proof  of  the  faith- 
fulness of  the  sacred  narrative,  even  in  matters  most  likelv  to  wound  the  national  sensibilities 
of  the  Jews.  The  Targum  softens  it  down  into  Putidakitha  =  iravSo/ceurpia,  cauponaria, 
"inn-keeper,"  and  P^raune  most  arbitrarily  renders  it  **  idolatress." 

»  The  phrase,  "time  will  fail  me,"  is  foiind  also  in  Philo  [De  somn.).  _  ■      <•  •  u 

10  A  proof  that  the  writer  never  dreamt,  any  more  than  St.  Paul  did,  of  an  inoperative  faith. 

"  The  allusion  is  to  the  promises  of  victory,  etc.,  of  Josh.  xxi.  45,  etc.     (Comp.  ver.  13,  39.) 

12  Dan.  vi.  23  ;  Judg.  xiv.  6  ;  2  Sam.  xvii.  34  ;  xxiii.  20. 

•3  Dan.  iii.  "'the  burning  fiery  furnace." 

'*  I  Sam.  xviii.  11  ;  xix.  10,  12  ;  2  Kings  iv.  14  ;  etc. 

I*  Samson,  David,  Hezekiah,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah.  Ezra,  etc. 

^^  These  two  clauses  seem  to  refer  to  the  Maccabees. 

'^  I  Kings  xvii.  22,  23  ;  2  Kings  iv.  35-37-  ... 

>8  This  is  the  technical  meaning  of  the  word,  and  is  probably  intended  here,  if  the  reference 
is  to  2  Mace.  vi.  18-30,  and  vii. 


294  llii"^    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

deliverance,  that  they  may  obtain  a  better  resurrection. i  Others  again  bore 
trial  of  muckinjis  and  sco'urgings.^  aye,  and  further  of  chains  and  imprison- 
ment ;'  they  were  stoned, <  were  sawn  asunder, ^  were  tempted, «  died  by  slaugh- 
ter of  the  sword."  They  went  about  in  sheepskins  and  goatskins,  being 
de.stitute.  afflicted,  tormented— of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy— wandering 
in  deserts  and  mountains,  and  caves  and  the  clefts  of  the  earth.**  And  these 
all.  being  borne  witness  to  by  their  faith,  received  not  the  promise,®  since  God 
provided  something  better  concerning  us.i"  in  order  that  they  may  not,  apart 
from  us,  be  perfected  "  "  (xi.  33—40). 

SECTION  IX. 

FINAL    EXHORTATIONS. 

He  can  now  resume  with  added  force  his  final  exhortation 
to  faithful  endurance.  They  are  running  a  race,  they  are 
fighting  a  battle,  but  they  are  not  alone.  They  are  successors 
of  the  old  saints,  united  with  them  in  sympathy,  but  endowed 
with  even  richer  blessings  and  inspired  with  more  glorious 
hopes. 

"Wherefore  let  us  also,  since  we  have  on  all  sides  around  us  so  great  a 
cloud  of  witnesses  (to  the  faith), 1-  laying  aside  every  weight  i^  and  the  closely- 
clinging  sin,'*  let  us  run  with  patience  the  race  set  before  us,  gazing  earnestly  on 

'  Not  a  resurrection  like  that  of  the  son  of  the  Shunamite  and  the  woman  of  Sarepta.  See 
2  Mace.  vii.  9-36. 

■■'  2  .Mace.  vii.  7-10  ;  i  Mace.  ix.  26  ;  Jos.  Antt.  ,xii.  5,  §  4. 

'  1  Mace.  xii.  12 ;  and  in  the  Old  'i'estament,  Micah  ;  i  Kings  xxiii.  26 ;  Jer,  xxxii.  23, 
etc. 

*  See  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20-22  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  35-37.     Tradition  said  that  Jeremiah  was  stoned. 
^  Isaiah  was  perhaps  sawn  asunder.     (See  Yevamoth,  f.  49  ^  ;  Sanhedrin,  f.  103  b;  Ham- 
burger. Tiilm.  Wort.  s.  V.  Jesaia.) 

*  Comp.  Matt.  xxiv.  51.  As  the  prophet  from  Judah  was  by  Jeroboam,  i  Kinjjs  xiii.  7. 
If  the  readmg  be  correct,  it  can  only  imply  that  the  temptation  to  apostatise  was  the  most  cruel 
of  afflictions  (conip.  Acts  xxvi.  11  ;  Life  aiid  Work  of  St.  Paul,  i.  172).  But  enprjo-Oriaav, 
"  they  were  burned,"  would  be  a  probable  conjecture  if  there  were  the  slightest  variation  m 
the  ^iS.S.  Comp.  Philo,  tn  Flacc.  20,  where  he  tells  us  that  some  Jews  of  Alexandria  were 
burned  alive.     (See  2  Mace.  vi.  n.) 

'•  1  Kings  xix.  10;  Jer.  xxvi.  23  ;  i  Mace.  ii.  38  ;  2  Mace.  v.  26. 

"  Judg.  vi.  2  ;  1  Kings  xviii.  4,  13 ;  xix.  8,  13  ;  i  Mace.  ii.  28,  29  ;  2  Mace.  v.  27 ;  vi.  11 ; 
.  6 ;  Matt.  xiv.  10. 

*  Sec  ix.  15.  If  this  be  the  right  reading,  we  must  suppose  a  contrast  between  general 
promises  (xi.  33)  and  the  one  great  final  promise.  But  A  reads  "promises,"  and  this  is  fol- 
lowed by  some  of  the  Fathers.     (Comp.  vi.  15.) 

1"  .Matt.  xiii.  17  ;  1  Pet.  i.  10,  11.  >»  i  Thess.  i.  10;  Rev.  xxi.  3,  4. 

"  "A  cloud,"  i.e.,  a  dense  multitude,  like  "a  cloud  of  foot-soldiers,"  in  Hom.  //.  iv.  274  ; 
Herod,  viii.  109  ;  and  comp.  Is.  Ix.  8.  Since  patience  was  the  characteristic  of  the  faith  of  all 
these  ciders,  he  exhorts  to  patience  (utto^oi'ij),  which  Ciirist  also  showed  {yitoy.tiva.%  lov 
aravpoi'i. 

'"  As  an  athletic  technicality  the  word  meant  "  superfluous  flesh,"  such  as  was  reduced  by 
irainins:  (Oalcn,  Hippocrates). 

'«  tinttpiararov  occurs  here  alone  in  Greek  literature.  The  meanings  which  have  been  sug- 
Kcstrd  arc,  (ij  "  circumventing,"  "  hemming  in  on  all  sides  :  "  (2)  "  easily  avoidable  "  (comp. 
wtptiarairo.  2  Tim.  ii.  16 :  'I'it.  iii.  9);  (3)  *"  much-applauded,"  in  the  sense  of  "surrounded 
by  s(Mn;t;ilors  ;  "  (4 )  "easily-Insetting."'  This  last  is  one  of  the  senses  approved  by  St.  Chry- 
st)stom  and  many  others  {r.tr..  Krasmus,  "■  tertaceter  inhaerens  ;"  Hp.  Sander.son,  ""quae 
not  arete  complectitur  ;  "  Widif,  "  that  standeth  about  us"),  and  involves  the  metaphor  of 
•  <  loscly-fittmg  robe  (orarbs  x^^*'"''  "a  .close  tunic"),  which  also  seems  to  be  suggested  by 
ino9ifi«vof.     (Comp.  Kph.  iv.  22:  Col.  iii.  9.) 


THE    EPISTLE   TO    THE    HEBREWS.  295 

the  leader'  and  perfecter  of  our  faith,  Tesus,  who  for  the  joy  set  before  Him 
endured  a  cross,  despising  shame,  and  has  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
throne  of  God.  For  compare  yourselves  with  him  who  hath  endured  such  con- 
tradiction at  the  hands  of  sinners  against  himself, "  that  yc  be  not  weary  by 
fainting  in  your  souls.  Not  yet  unto  blood  did  ye  resist  in  your  struggles 
against  sin,^  and  yet  ye  have  utterly  forgotten  the  encouragement  which  dis- 
courseth  with  you  as  with  sons,  My  vSon,  despise  not  the  training  of  the  Lord, 
nor  laint  in  beyig  corrected  by  Him  :  for  whom  the  Lord  loveth  He  traineth, 
yea,  He  scourgeth  every  son  whom  He  accepteth.*  Endure  with  a  view  to  your 
training,^  since  God  is  dealing  with  you  as  with  sons"  (xii.  i — 7). 

He  continues  the  illustration  of  God's  P'atherhood  by 
human  fatherhood.  The  father  who  nobly  and  wisely  loves 
his  child  will  not  spoil  him  by  suffering  him  to  grow  up  in 
head-strong  wilfulness,  but  will  punish  him  when  punishment 
is  needful,  and  the  father  does  not  thereby  lose,  but  rather  in- 
creases, his  son's  reverence  for  him.  How  much  rather  shall 
we  subject  ourselves  to  the  Father  of  our  spirits?"  The  pun- 
ishment of  earthly  parents  is  only  for  the  brief  days  of  their 
authority,  and  there  mingles  with  it  an  element,  if  not  of 
caprice,  yet  of  the  possbile  errors  of  human  opinion.  God 
corrects  us  only  for  our  good,  that  we  may  partake  of  His 
holiness.  Now  the  sterner  side  of  training  is  never  immedi- 
ately pleasurable;  but  men  enjoy  its  fruits  afterwards  in  the 
peace  of  moral  hardihood  and  serene  self-mastery.  He  urges 
them  then  to  straighten  into  vigour  the  relaxed  hands  and 


1  'Apxrtyov.  See  Acts  iii.  15,  "the  Prince  of  life  ;  "'  v.  31,  "  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour  ;  "  /«- 
y^a,  ii.  10  ;  Is.  xxx.  4  ([.XX.).  Whether,  as  Riehni  and  others  think,  the  idea  is  involved  of 
Jesus  al.so  "setting  forth  and  manifesting  faith  in  its  perfection"  is  a  very  doubtful  "  after- 
thoiiglit  of  theology." 

^  X>  f  ^  K  have  eauTous,  "  sinners  against  themselves." 

3  "  Unto  blood  "  may  either  be  the  technical  pugilistic  expression  ("an  athlete  can  bring 
no  great  courage  to  a  contest  who  has  never  had  blood  drawn  " — "  ^ui  jiutiquam  suggillatus 
est,"  Sen.)  ;  or,  more  probably,  means,  "  there  have  as  yet  been  no  actual  martyrdoms  among 
you."  The  use  of  the  aorist  seems  to  imply  a  slight  reproach — "'ye  resisted  not  u?ito  blood, 
but  gave  way  to  the  attack."  Until  we  have  any  grounds  for  reasonable  certainty  as  to  the 
Church  to  which  this  Episde  was  addressed,  the  phrase  can  hardly  be  used  as  an  argument 
in  setding  the  date  at  which  it  was  written.  Certainly  in  Rome  and  in  Jerusalem  there  had 
been  martyrdoms  before  any  date  which  is  at  all  probable  for  its  composition. 

4  Philo  comments  on  the  same  passage  (Prov.  iii.  11,  12)  in  much  the  same  strain  {Of>p.  i. 
544).  The  (luotation  is  from  the  I.XX..  with  slight  variations.  It  agrees  with  the  Hebrew, 
except  that  "faint  in  being  corrected"  is  in  the  Hebrew  "loathe  not  His  correction."  'Ihe 
Vat.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  has  iKiyx^i,  "rebukes"  or  "chastens,"  for  n-aiSeuet.  "trains"  (see 
Rev.  iii.  19).  In  the  last  clause,  lor  "scourgeth  every  son.  etc.,"  the  Hebrew  has  "even  as  a 
father  the  son  in  whom  he  delighteth."     Probably  the  LXX.  read  SNr^  for  SNS^. 

'"•  The  best  reading  seems  to  be  eis,  not  ei  (X.  A,  D,  K,  T.,  etc.). 

*  This  is  the  most  natural  meaning  of  tw  HaTpi  twi'  7r;'eu|xaTu>r,  especially  when  we  compare 
it  with  Num.  xvi.  22,  "  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  tlcsh."  And  this  seems  to  have  originated 
the  expression  among  Rabbinic  writers  {v.  Wetstein  and  Schcittgen,  ad  loc).  Others  take  it 
to  mean  "  the  Father  of  spiritual  life"  (the  Author  of  xapcV/iara,  or  Divine  graces),  or  "of  the 
spirit-world,"  i.e.,  "of  angels,"  etc.  l>ut  it  would  not  then  be  a  direct  antithesis  to  "fathers 
of  our  flesh."  To  draw  any  inference  here  about  the  verbal  controversy  (as  it  seems  to  me) 
between  Creationists~\.\\o%Q.  who  consider  that  the  human  soul  is  in  each  birth  distincdy  f  r^- 
ated—z\iA  Traduciauists—thov.^  who  think  that  it  is  derived  in  the  way  of  natural  birtjj— li 
perfectly  futile. 


296 


THE   EAKLV    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


palsied  knees,  and  to  make  straight  tracks  for  their  feet,'  that 
lameness  may  not  be  quite  put  out  of  joint,"  but  may  rather 
be  cured. 

"  Pursue  peace  with  all,^  and  the  sanctification  without  which  no  man  shall 
see  the  Lord  ;  looking  carefully  lest  there  be  any  one  who  is  falling  short  of  the 
grace  of  God — lest  any  root  of  bitterness*  springing  up  troublofvou,  and  by  its 
means  the  many  be  defiled— lest  there  be  any  fornicator,^  or  scorner,  like  Esau, 
wlio  for  one  meal  sold  his  own  birthright.®  For  ye  know  that  afterwards,  when 
he  was  even  anxious  to  inherit  the  blessing,  he  was  rejected :  for  he  found  no 
opportunity  for  repentance — though  he  sought  it  li.e.,  the  blessing]  earnestly 
with  tears  "^  (xii.  14 — 17). 

'  xii.  13.     Kal  Tpoxias  op9ag  TroiijcraTe  Tois  iroalv  vfiuiv  is  an  unintentional  hexameter. 
TTiese  are  metrical  accidents.     The  metaphor  is  borrowed  from  Prov.  iv.  26.     The  fact  that, 
besides  this  hexameter,  there  are  two  distinct  jambics(ver.  14,  15) — 
o5  x^jpis  ovSels  oi//erai  top  Kvptov, 
'EmaicoiTovvTeg  fxr)  rts  vaTepoii'  ano, 
and  one  half-iambic,   tva  fir)  rh  xwAov  eKrpan^   (ver.  13),  and  a  bad  pentameter  (ver.  26)  — 
though  the  rhythms  are  evidendy  unintentional — shows  tiie  elaboration  and  oratorical  finish 
and  stateliness  of  the  st>'le. 

'  fKTpaTTJ).  I  have  given  the  technical  sense  of  the  \vord  {Itixari)  ;  and  the  familiarity  of 
the  writer  with  St.  Luke's  language,  and,  in  all  probability,  with  St.  Luke  himself,  makes  it 
not  unlikely  that  he  may  have  learnt  a  technical  term  or  two  from  intercouise  with  "  the  be- 
loved physician."  Possibly,  however,  the  word  may  have  its  ordinary  sense  of  "  be  turned 
out  of  the  way."     i  Tim.  i.  6  ;  v.  15  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  4.  3  p^.  xxxiv.  10  ;  i  Pet.  iii.  it. 

*  xii.  15  ;  Deut.  xxix.  i8,  ''a  root  that  beareth  gall  and  wormwood,"  or,  as  in  margin,  "a 
poisonful  herb."  The  mention  of  "  gall "  has  led  to  the  untenable  conjecture  that  we  should 
read  kv  xo^ji  here  as  in  the  LXX.;  but  the  Alexandrine  MS.  of  the  LXX.  has  ej'oxAg.  See 
Exc.  IX. 

'  xii.  16.  Since  the  word  here  can  hardly  mean  "  idolator  "  (Chrys.,  Calvin,  Grotius,  De 
^yette.  Hleek,  etc.),  and  would  be  too  strong  to  apply  to  Esau  on  account  of  his  heathen  mar- 
riages (Gen.  xxvii.  35  ;  xxviii.  8),  we  must  suppose  that  the  writer  follows  the  Jewish  tradition, 
as  Philo  also  does,  in  which  Esau  was  represented  as  a  man  of  impure  life.  They  applied  to 
him  the  expression  in  Prov.  .xxviii.  21.  If  it  mean  apostasy  from  Jewish  privileges  (Tholuck, 
Ebrard,  Riehm),  then  /lis  nopveia  in  abandoning  Judaism  is  compared  with  the  iropveia.  of 
twiv  returning  to  it  (Riehm,  p.  155,  f.  9).  «  kavrov,  X.  A,  C. 

^  xii.  14-17.  The  general  tenor  of  the  warning  is,  Do  not  despfse  your  birthright,  lest  here- 
after you  should  be  unable  to  recover  it  when  you  feel  the  bitter  consequences  of  the  loss.  If 
this  clause  means  that  Esau  desired  to  repent,  and  no  chance  of  repenting  was  allowed  him, 
it.  runs  counter  to  the  entire  tenor  of  P.iblc  teaching.  Hence  the  tottos  p.eravoia<;  (comp.  Wisd. 
xii.  10)  must  mean,  like  its  Latin  equivalent,  '"'■  /ecus pocfiiicntiae,"  not  merely  an  opportunity 
for  repentance,  but  a  chance  of  so  changing  his  mind  as  to  avert  the  fatal  consequences.  "'  It 
docs  not  mean."  says  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  "  that  he  did  not  obtain  pardon  of  sins  on  re- 
pentance, for  that  he  was  not  in  any  way  asking  ;  but  that  it  was  never  possible  for  the  bles- 
sing to  be  given  him  again."  "  His  tears  were  tears  of  remorse  for  the  earthly  consequences, 
not  tears  of  spiritual  sorrow  (2  Cor.  vii.  10).  They  sprang  from  the  dolor  nfiiissi,  not  the 
tiolor  admissi ;  from  the  dolor  ol>  poenain,  not  the  dolor  ob  J>eccatum''^  (Wordsworth). 
Hence,  though  we  cannot  accept  the  favourite  view  of  many  modern  commentators  (Beza, 
Kbrard,  I  holuck,  etc.)  that  the  words  mean  "an  opportunity  of  a  change  ofmindz«///j 
yriMi-r."  wc  must  either  (i)  give  to /nerat'Ota  some  less  special  sense  than  that  of  "  repent- 
ance," which  it  usually  bears  ;  or  (2)  put  the  clause  in  a  parenthesis,  and  take  it  to  mean  that, 
a.s  a  fact,  Esau  never  repented,  which  is  rendered  more  probable  by  the  Targum  on  Job,  which 
says  :  "All  the  days  of  Esau  the  ungodly  they  expected  that  he  would  have  repented,  but  he 
repented  not  ;  "  or  (3)  we  nuist  suppose  that  it  means  "  he  found  no  opportunity  of  repentance 
u  *i'i  '•  "'^  "^  Tu>uld  reverse  the  consequences  of  his  profane  levity,  and  win  him  back 
the  bicssmg."  If  we  take  this  last  view,  the  "though  he  sought  it"  may  mean  ''this  ki?id 
f/ repentance  :  "  if  not,  we  have  no  alternative  but  to  understand  "  it "  of  "  the  blessing."  It 
IS  pcrfo.tiy  true  that  there  is  thus  a  difTiculty  either  in  the  construction  of  the  sentence,  or  in 
the  mcmmg  given  tf)  n-tTavoia  :  and  some  may  prefer  to  say  tliat  the  passage  merely  expresses 
the  hopeless  condition,  humanly  s/>eaki>ig,  of  the  hardened  and  defiant  .ipostate.  like  vi.  4-8  ; 
U.  3  ;  X.  26-31  ;  XII.  25.  lUit  if  any  one  rejects  all  these  wavs  of  removing  the  difiiculty,  he  is 
left  with  a  statement  which  will  ever  furnish  its  best  striMis^hoM  to  that  ginlty  despair  which  is 
antaKonistic  to  all  that  is  best  and  most  precious  ui  the  (lospcl  of  Love.  It  was  the  abuse  of 
this  passage  by  the  Montanists  and  Novatians  to  justify  their  refusal  of  absolution  to  those 
who  fell  into  sin  after  baptism  which  tended  to  the  di>(  rcditing  of  this  Epistle  in  the  Western 
Church.  '^ 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  297 

Then  comes  the  great  outburst  of  triumphant  comparison 
in  which  he  closes  this,  his  main  exhortation  a^^ainst  the  im- 
minent peril  of  apostasy: — 


"to' 


"  For  ye  have  not  come  to  palpable  and  enkindled  fire,'  and  to  darkness, 
and  gloom,  and  storm,  and  soimd  of  trumpet,  and  voice  of  utterances  (priniTu>y) , 
which  they  who  heard  deprecated,  entreating  that  no  further  discourse  (\6yov) 
should  be  addressed  to  them,  for  they  could  not  bear  what  was  being  enjoined, 
*  and  if  a  beast  touch  the  mountain  it  shall  be  stoned  ; '  and — (so  fearful  was  the 
pomp  of  the  vision) — Moses  said,  '  I  am  terrified  and  trembling '^r — but  ye  have 
approached  Sion,  mountain  and  city  of  the  Living  God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem, 
and  to  myriads  of  angels,  to  a  festal  assembly  and  church  of  tlie  Firstborn 
enrolled  in  Heaven,^  to  a  Judge,  the  God  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men 
who  have  been  perfected,  and  to  Jesus,  Mediator  of  a  new  covenant, •»  and  to  a 
blood  of  sprinkling  which  speaketh  something  better  than  that  of  Abel.*  Take 
heed  that  ye  do  not  decline  to  listen  to  Him  that  speaketh.  For  if  i/iey  escaped 
not  by  refusing  him  who  spake  on  earth,  far  more  shall  not  we,  who  are  turning 
away  from  Him  who  is  from  Heaven/  Whose  voice  shook  the  earth  then,'  but 
now  He  hath  promised,  saying,  'Again,  once  for  all,  will  I  shake  not  only  the 
earth,  but  also  the  Heaven.'**  Now  this  'again  once  for  all'  indicates  the 
removal  of  the  things  that  are  being  shaken,  as  of  things  which  have  been  made 
in  order  that  things  which  cannot  be  shaken  may  remain. «  Wherefore  since  we 
are  receiving  a  kingdom  which  cannot  be  shaken,  let  us  cherish  thankfulness, 


^  -xii.  18.  This  rendering  may  surprise  the  reader  ;  but  opei  is  omitted  by  Xi  A,  C,  and 
some  of  the  best  versions,  and  this  view  is  adopted  by  Bengel,  Delitzsch,  Tischendorf,  David- 
son, Moulton,  etc.  See  Ex.  xix.  i8  ;  xx.  12  ;  Dent.  iv.  12.  Th^  words  may,  however,  mean 
"  that  [mountain]  which  is  material  (or  '  that  is  being  groped  for'  (Wordsworth)  ;  comp.  Ex. 
X.  21  :  LXX.)  and  burned  with  fire." 

2  In  speaking  of  this  terror  of  Moses  at  Sinai,  the  writer  follows  the  Hagadah,  unless  he 
can  be  supposed  to  refer  to  Deut.  ix.  19.  In  Shabbath,  f.  88,  l>,  Moses  exclaims,  "  I^rd  of 
the  Universe,  I  am  afraid  lest  they  (the  angels)  should  consume  me  with  the  breath  of  their 
mouths."  The  same  tradition  of  Moses'  terror  is  found  in  Midrash  Koheleth,  f.  69,  4,  and  in 
Zohar.  In  Ex.  xix.  16  it  is  said  that  "all  the  people  trembled."  Similarly,  in  .^cts  yii.  22 
we  are  told  the  unrecorded  fact  that  Moses  trembled  on  seeing  the  burning  bush  (Ex.  lii.  6). 

3  I  will  not  here  enter  into  the  voluminous  controversy  which  has  arisen  as  to  tlie  punctua- 
tion of  these  words,  or  the  exact  significance  which  the  writer  attached  to  the  expression 
"church  of"  the  first-born  enrolled  in  heaven,"  because  I  do  not  think  that  any  certain  conclu- 
sions can  be  arrived  at.  I  take  the  /utvpiacrt  with  dyYeAuiv,  because  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  i,  3  ;  Ps. 
Ixviii.  17  :  Dan.  vii.  10  ;  and  I  suppose  the  "  Church  of  the  first-born  enrolled  in  heaven"  to 
be  the  Church  of  Christ,  the  heir  of  the  spiritual  Jacob,  while  the  Jews  had  forfeited  their 
spiritual  birthright.  (See  Luke  x.  30  ;  Rev.  iii.  5  ;  xiii.  8  ;  xx.  15  ;  Phil.  iv.  3.  Comp.  Ex. 
iv.  22  ;   xix.  1-6  with  i  Pet.  ii.  9;  and  see  xiii.  8). 

4  Ata9^(cr>  vea,  as  distinguished  from  the  commoner  epithet  Katj/ij,  imphes  not  only  that  it 
is  "  recent,"  but  that  it  is  "young"  and  "strong." 

5  See  ix.  13  ;  x.  22  ;  xi.  4;  xiii.  12.  "The  biood  of  Abel  demanded  vengeance,  that  of 
Christ  remission  "  (Erasmus).  It  is  curious  that,  according  to  Jewish  legend,  the  dispute  be- 
tween Cain  and  Abel  had  reference  to  the  question  whetlier  God  was  a  judge  or  not,  which, 
Selden  says,  was  even  found  in  some  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  [Dc  jur.ttataL). 
One  interpretation  of  the  plural  "  bloods"  in  Gen.  iv.  10  was  that  his  "blood  was  sprinkled 
on  the  trees  and  stones"  (Surenhus-  Mishna  iv.  229). 

6  Chrysostom,  etc.,  understood  Moses  to  be  meant  by  him  that  uttereth  sacred  words  on 
earth.  He  who  speaks  from  heaven  is  Jesus.  P.ut  the  contrast  cvidendy  is  between  the  voice 
that  spoke  on  Sinai  and  that  which  appeals  to  us  from  the  heavenly  Sion.  It  is  not  a  contrast 
between  the  speakers,  but  between  the  places  from  which  they  spoke,  involving  as  it  did  the 
vast  difference  between  the  inferior  and  the  superior  revelation.  The  speaker  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  same,  for  even  the  Jews  always  said  that  the  speaker  at  Sinai  was  Michael  — 
the  Shechinah  =  the  Angel  of  the  Presence  (Isa.  Ixiii.  9),  or  of  the  Covenant  (Mai   in.  i). 

'  See  Ex.  xix.  18  ;  Judg.  v.  4  ;   Ps.  cxiv.  7.  ^  t    1 

«  Hagg.  ii.  6,  7.     The  words  literally  mean,  "Yet  once  it  is,  a  little  while."     Comp.  Luke 

xxi.  26.  .  1    •        u   1 

»  The  words  may  also  be  rendered,  "The  removing  of  the  things  that  aie  being  shaken,  as 

of  things  which  have  been  made  in  order  that  the  things  not  shaken  may  remain."' 


298  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  thereby  let  us  serve  God  acceptably  with  holy  awe  and  fear.     For,  indeed, 
our  God  is  a  consuming  fire  "»  (xii.  18—29). 

In  this,  then,  was  to  be  their  great  encouragement  to  Faith 
and  Patience.  The  Dispensation  which  they  were  now  enjoy- 
ing was  infinitely  richer  in  blessing,  infinitely  less  surrounded 
with  elements  of  terror,  than  that  under  which  had  lived  those 
Elders  of  whose  steadfast  endurance  he  had  just  been  telling 
them.  In  the  culminating  point  of  that  Dispenstaion  God  had 
spoken  to  the  Israelites  of  old,  not  from  Heaven,  but  from  the 
flaming  and  earthquake-riven  peak  of  the  desert  mountain. 
His  voice  had  come  with  a  sound  so  awful  from  the  dark  storm 
and  careering  fire  as  to  force  from  them  the  entreaty  that  God 
would  speak  to  them  no  more,  except  through  the  voice  of 
their  lawgiver.  Even  that  great  lawgiver  had  almost  recoiled 
in  terror  from  the  awful  splendour  of  the  scene.  To  the 
mountain  itself  the  Israelites  had  not  dared  to  approach,  for 
they  had  been  told  to  set  a  fence  around  it,  so  as  not  even  to 
touch  its  border,  and  if  even  an  animal  touched  it  they  were 
to  stone  it,  or  pierce  it  with  a  dart.  They  stood,  therefore, 
afar  off,  and  Jewish  legend  told  how  at  the  utterance  of  each 
commandment  they  recoiled  twelve  miles,  till  the  ministering 
angels  brought  them  back.*  But  now  the  True  Israel — they 
who  had  accepted  the  Messiah  and  King  of  Israel — had  come 
near,  and  that  with  perfect  boldness,  to  another  and  a  heavenly 
hill,  where  there  were  angels  indeed  in  myriads,  but  not  sur- 
rounded with  attributes  of  terror;  where  they  would  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  peaceful  and  blessed  communion  which  united 
the  saints  on  earth  to  those  in  Heaven;  and  where  it  was  the 
Voice  of  the  Son  of  God  Himself  whi^h  invited  them  to  enter 
the  immediate  Presence  of  God,  their  Loving  Judge.  If, 
then,  the  neglect  of  that  voice  from  Sinai  had  brought  down 
its  own  terrible  consequences,  how  much  more  inexcusable 
wouhl  it  be,  how  much  more  terrible,  to  neglect  and  despise 
the  Voice  which  now  called  to  them  in  tones  of  infinite  ten- 
derness! The  earth  had  trembled  at  Sinai;  the  sure  word  of 
Prophecy  had  declared  that  it  should  be  shaken  once  again. 
But  there  was  one  thing  which  could  never  be  shaken,  and 
that  was  the  Kingdom  of  God  into  which  they  had  entered.  Let 
that  thought  be  to  them  one  of  thankfulness  and  godly  rev- 
erence, lest,  forfeiting  the  blessings  into  which  they  had  been 


xii.  i3-23.     The  quotation  is  from  Deut.  iv.  24  (comp.  ix.  3),  and  gives  a  reason  whv  our 
love  of  (;oil  should  l)c  mingled  with  holy  awe  and  fear.     The  best  reading  is  M«Td  euAa'^eias 
«tti  «<ow«,  although  5«05  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament. 
'•*  Sec  McCaul's  Old  Paths,  pp.  202-205. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  299 

freely  admitted,  they  should  find  that  the  Fire  of  Love  was  no 
less  terrible  to  purge  and  punish  than  had  been  that  of  Sinai 
to  their  fathers!  ^ 

The  last  chapter  of  the  Epistle  consists  of  notices  and  ex- 
hortations, such  as  the  writer  considered  to  be  necessary  for 
the  Church  whose  members  he  is  addressing.  He  urges  them 
to  a  continuance  of  their  brotherly  love.''  He  tells  them  not 
to  forget  hospitality,  a  virtue  which  was  so  indispensable  for 
the  happiness  of  the  poor  brethren  who  found  themselves  in 
strange  towns. ^  It  was  a  virtue  for  which  the  ancient  Chris- 
tians were  celebrated  even  among  the  heathen,*  and  the  writer 
reminds  them  how  by  the  exercise  of  hospitality  some  of  the 
elders  (like  Abraham  and  Lot  and  Manoah  and  Gideon")  had 
even  entertained  angels  unawares.^  He  bids  them  be  mindful 
of  prisoners,  as  being  themselves  Christ's  prisoners, °  and  of 
all  in  distress,  liable  as  they  were,  while  still  in  the  body,  to 
similar  sufferings.''  He  bids  them  in  all  respects  to  honour 
marriage,  and  to  keep  undeiiled  the  marriage  bed,  since  God 
will  judge  the  unclean.^  He  warns  them  against  covetous- 
ness,''  and  encourages  them  to  contentment  by  the  blessed 
promise  that  God  would  never  leave  nor  forsake  them,'"  a 

*  Comp.  X.  27,  28,  30. 

2  vi.  10  ;  X.  32,  33.  Comp.  Rom.  xii.  lo  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  9  ;  i  Pet.  i.  22.  Perhaps  the  neglect, 
by  some,  of  Christian  gatherings  had  tended  to  disunion  (x.  25). 

3  I  Pet.  iv.  8,  9  :  Rom.  xii.  13  ;  Tit.  i.  8  ;  i  Tim.  iii.  2.  Comp.  Berachoth,  f.  63,  h,  and  ma^y 
passages  in  Hershon's  T'rt'rtjwr^'.y  .9/ //^^  7'rt/wW,  chap.  X. 

4  Liician,  De  fiiort.  Peregr.  16  :  "  Their  principal  lawgiver  has  inspired  in  them  the  senti- 
ment that  they  are  all  mutually  brethren."  Julian  (/?/.  49)  says  that  r\  nepl  toii?  ^evov;  4>i\av 
GpianioL  has  been  the  chief  element  of  success  in  the  spread  of  their  aflcorrj?. 

^  Comp.  Matt.  XKV.  35.  The  writer  had  doubtless  read  Piiilo's  De  Abrahaiito  [0pp.  ii.  17): 
"  I  know  not  what  excess  of  happiness  and  blessedness  I  should  ascribe  to  the  household  where- 
in angels  deigned  to  be  introduced  to  men,  and  to  share  their  gifts  of  hospitality." 

8  I  Cor.  vii.  22  :  2  Cor.  ii.  14  ("who  leadcth  us  m  triumph").  Lucian,  in  his  curious  tract 
on  the  Death  of  Peregrinu.s,  dwells  on  the  extraordinary  tenderness  of  Christians  for  the  Con- 
fessors in  prison.  This  incidental  notice  shows  the  courage  and  endurance  which  a  Christian 
was  called  on  to  display  in  these  times  of  persecution. 

^  Calvin  takes  kv  acijaari  to  mean  "  the  body  ol  the  Church  "  ;  but  the  words  standing  alone 
could  not  bear  such  a  meaning.  Here,  again,  we  might  be  prepared  to  .see  a  reminiscence  of 
Philo,  who  says,  to?  ei'  rot?  ereprnv  (T(x)fiaa-iv  avTol  KaKOvixepoi.,  "as  bein^ yourselves  aftlicted  in 
the  persons  of  others"  (De  spec,  legg:  §  30).  But  the  meaning  clearly  is,  "as  being  ourselves 
liable  to  suffer." 

^  The  warnings  may  have  been  equally  needed  by  Essenes,  who  di.sparaged  marriajge  (i 
Tim.  iv.  3),  and  by  Antinomians,  who  made  light  of  unchastity  {Acts  xv.  20  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  6 ; 
xii.  16). 

8  For  a  .similar  juxtaposition  of  covetousness  and  uncleanness  see  i_Cor.  v.  10;  yi.  9:  Eph. 
V.  3,  5  ;  Col.  iii.  5  ;  and  here  the  very  idiom  (ac^iAap-yvpo?  6  rpoTro?  •_  apKovp-^voi)  is  identical 
with  that  of  .St.  Paul  (Rom.  xii.  9  :  t/  dyan-r/  avu-o/cpiTos  •  a.-noinv^ovv7i<;).  It  need  hardly  be 
added  that  this  is  no  proof  whatever  of  the  Pauline  authorship.  It  is  quite  clear  throughout 
the  Epistle  that  the  writer  has  lived  in  close  communion  with  St.  Paul,  and  a  writer  of  such 
intense  originality  as  St.  Paul  stamps  his  thoughts  and  idioms  on  the  minds  of  his  associates. 
These  similarities  only  force  into  more  prominent  relief  the  marked  individuality  of  the  stjle  of 
the  present  writer. 

10  "  He  hath  said."  "  He,"  as  in  the  Talmud,  means  God  ("ittN  Kin).  The  e.xact  words, 
"  I  will  never  leave  thee  nor  forsake  thee,"  do  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  though  they  are 
so  quoted  by  Philo  [De  con/us.  ling.  §  32).  The  expression  may  be  taken  from  1  Chr.  xxviii. 
20;    Deut.  xxxi.  6,  8  ;  t^r  (more  probably)  Josh.  i.  5. 


3C)0  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

promise  which  gave  them  an  impregnable  security  against  all 
assaults  of  man.  He  bids  them  bear  in  memory  their  leaders 
who  had  pasesd  away' — leaders  who  once  spoke  to  them  the 
Word  of  God,  "whose  faith  imitate,  contemplating  the  issue 
of  their  Christian  walk. ' '  ^ 

And  since  those  leaders  had  ever  preached  Christ,  Who  is 
the  Word  of  God — i^though  here  again  the  term  is  not  dii-ectly 
applied  to  Him; — he  warns  them  once  more  of  their  tendency 
to  be  seduced  by  the  haughty  boasts  and  privileges  of  Juda- 
ism, or  by  any  which  would  lead  them  to  relapse  into  the  re- 
ligion from  which  they  had  been  converted. 

"Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  for  ever.s  Be  not 
swept  away^  by  various  and  strange  teachings.  For  it  is  a  beautiful  things  to  be 
established  in  heart  by  grace,"  not  by  meats,  in  which  they  who  walked  ivere 
not  benefited."  We  have  an  altar, '^  wherefrom  they  have  no  license  to  eat  who 
serve  the  tabernacle.''  For  the  bodies  of  those  animals,  the  blood  of  which  is 
carried  by  the  High  Priest  into  the  holy  place,  are  burned  outside  the  camp. 
Therefore'  Jesus  also,  that  he  may  sanctify  the  people  by  His  own  blood, 
suffered  without  the  gate.'"  Let  us  then  go  forth  to  him  outside  the  camp, 
bearing  his  reproach. 'i     For  we  have  not  here  an  abiding  city,  but  we  are  seek- 

'  //the  letter  was  addressed  to  Palestine,  these  leaders  would  include  such  men  as  St. 
Stephen  and  St.  James  the  brother  of  St.  John.  i 

2  The  ivord  c/c^acrii' ("outcome")  occurs  only  in  i  Cor.  x.  13,  where  it  is  rendered  "escape." 
The  word  here  may  imply  their  death  (on  the  analogy  of  e^o5o?,  2  Pet.  i.  15  ;  Lk.  ix.  31,  and 
a<^ifis,  "  departure,"  Acts  xx.  29).  It  means  that  they  were  faithful  to  the  end  (see  Wisd.  ii. 
if  I.  3  ]\ja|_  iii  5  .  ja.  i.  17. 

*  "  Being  swept  away  (irepK^epojuei/oi)  by  every  wind  of  teaching  "  (Eph.  iv.  14). 

*  Ver.  9,  KoXov. 

^  Its  meaning  is  that  our  security  should  rest  on  God's  grace,  not  on  Levitical  rules  and 
distinctions  about  meats  and  drinks,  which  had  been  profitless  to  the  Jews,  who  attached  so 
much  importance  to  them.  On  the  extent  to  which  these  questions  agitated  the  ancient  Church, 
and  their  bearing  on  daily  life,  see  Life  of  St.  Paul,  i.  264  ;  and  comp.  ix.  10;  Rom.  xiv.: 
Col.  ii.  16-23  ;  1  Tim.  iv.  3  ;  and  Gal.  vi.  12,  13.  No  doubt  the  Jews  appealed  to  the  eternal 
Pharisaism  of  the  human  heart,  and  said  to  the  Christian  converts,  "  We  live  Jewish-wise ; 
you  have  degraded  yourself  into  living  Gentile  fashion  (e0i't(ca)s.  Gal.  ii.  14)  ;  you  neglectthe 
Kashar ;  you  feed  with  those  who  are  defiled  by  eating  of  the  unclean  beast." 

^  _x.  29  :  xii.  15,  28  8  Namely,  "the  Cross."     See  infra. 

"  The  connexion  is  not  quite  obvious  at  first  sight,  but  seems  to  be  as  follows  :— He  has 
said  that  "  matters  of  meat "  had  been  found  unprofitable  (vii.  18,  19),  and  is  perhaps  reminded 
of  the  boasted  Jewish  privilege  of  partaking  of  the  .sacrifices  (i  Cor.  ix.  13),  which  was  of  course 
no  longer  possible  for  Christians  whom  the  Jews  had  e.xcommunicated.  So  far,  then,  the  Chris- 
tians may  have  felt,  and  may  h.ive  been  taunted  with,  their  loss.  Hut  the  writer  reminds  them 
that  M^'/V  sacrifice  was  analogous  to  the  highest  and  most  solemn  of  all  the  Jewish  sacrifices— 
those  offered  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.  Now  of  these  neither  the  priests  nor  any  of  the  Jews 
might  cat  (Ix;v.  iv.  12  ;  vi.  30  ;  xvi.  27).  The  bodies  of  these  victims  were  burnt  without  the 
camp,  just  as  our  Divine  Victim  suffered  outside  the  city  gate.  Now  oioiir  altar,  of  our  sacri- 
fices, ive  may  eat  (John  vi.  51-56).  We  are  bidden  spiritually  to  eat  His  flesh,  and  drink  His 
blood.  Hut  u{  this  altar,  ai  t/tis  sacrifice,  they  who  serve  the  Tabernacle  (see  viii.  5)  may  not 
^^w  V,  •'  '^*^'''-'%*^'  ^'■^'  better  off  than  they.  Let  us  then  go  forth  to  Him  out  of  the  old  city 
which  rejected  Him  and  the  old  dispensation — which  refused  to  recognise  its  own  annulment; 

Vo  ii"'^''  '^'^  rt^proach,  that  we  may  r.lso  enjoy  the  blessings  which  He  offers. 

His  suflenng  without  the  gate  (Matt,  xxvii.  32)  corresponded  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  vic- 
tim, and  the  burning  ui  its  body  ;  the  .sanctification  of  His  people  by  the  blood  of  this  sacrifice, 
with  which  He  has  passed  into  the  heavens,  corresponds  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  by  the 
high  priest  in  the  holiest  ])lace. 

"  Matt.  V.  10-12;  I,k.  vi.  22.  The  Jews  treated  them  as  outcasts  and  apostates,  but  they 
were  to  remember  that  they  were  citizens  not  of  the  doomed  city  (Matt.  xxlv.  2).  but  of  the  city 
that  hath  the  foundations  which  were  not  material  but  built  by  God.  Possibly  in  this  "re- 
pr...-»rh      there  may  l>c  a  passing  allusion  to  the  fact  that  those  who  burnt  the  bodies  of  the 


THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE   HEBREWS.  30I 

ing  further  for  that  which  is  to  come,  Throu,<,'h  him,  then,  let  us  offer  up  a 
sacrifice  of  praise  '  continually  to  God,  that  is  the  fruit  of  lips  which  confess  to 
His  name.-  But  forget  not  beneficence,  and  free-sharing  of  your  goods,  for 
with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased  "  ^  (xiii.  8 — 16). 

This  passage,  like  multitudes  of  others  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, has  been  pressed  into  modern  controversies  with  which 
it  has  no  connexion.  The  whole  context  shows  that  the  word 
"altar"  is  here  secondary,  incidental,  and  metaphorical.  The 
passage  is  highly  compressed,  and  is  so  allusive  that  we  should 
hardly  be  able  to  understand  it  apart  from  the  tenor  of  the 
argument  which  has  occupied  the  main  part  of  the  Epistle.  I 
have  endeavoured  in  the  note  to  explain  its  meaning.  Here 
I  may,  perhaps,  add  a  general  paraphrase.  Do  not  forget  the 
rulers  of  your  Church  who  have  ended  consistent  lives  by  holy 
deaths.  Imitate  their  faith.  They  are  gone,  but  the  object 
of  their  faith  is  deathless  and  unchangeable:  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever.  Be  then  steadfast 
in  the  immutable  truth  of  His  doctrine.  Do  not  be  swept 
away  by  gusts  of  everchanging  opinion — particularly  those  of 
the  Jewish  Halachists,  who  spend  their  whole  lives  in  torturing 
strange  inferences  out  of  Levitic  regulations.  The  meats  and 
drinks  with  which  this  science  of  the  Halachah  is  mainly  oc- 
cupied have  been  proved  by  the  experience  of  ages  to  be  in 
themselves  profitless  (vii.  18,  19).  It  is  not  scrupulosity  about 
ceremonial  minutiae,  but  it  is  the  grace  of  God  which  is  the 
real  stay  and  security  of  the  spiritual  and  moral  life.  When 
they  speak  about  these  distinctions  of  clean  and  unclean 
meats — doubtless  your  priestly  antagonists  taunt  you  with  their 
privilege  of  partaking  of  many  sacrifices,  such  as  the  sin-offer- 
ings and  trespass-offerings,  and  wave-offerings,  and  doves — a 
privilege  of  which  you,  priests  though  you  are  to  God  (i  Pet. 
ii.  5;  Rev.  i.  6;  xx.  6),  may  share  no  longer.  Be  it  so.  Still 
our  case  is  far  superior  to  theirs.  For  of  their  greatest  and 
most  significant  sacrifices,  those  offered  on  the  Day  of  Atone- 


Atonement-victims  outside  the  camp  were  ceremonially  unclean  ;  but  far  more  to  the  fixed 
Jewish  conception  that  he  who  was  crucified  was  "accursed  of  God "  (Deut.  xxi.  22,  23). 
(See  Life  0/ St.  Paul,  ii.  77,  148.) 

'  See  Lev.  vii.  12  ;  Pss.  xliv.  23  ;  cxvi.  17.  The  Jews  had  a  very  remarkable  saying  that 
in  the  days  of  the  Messiah  all  other  sacrifices  should  cease,  but  that  the  sacrifices  of  prais- 
(Jer.  xvii.  26)  should  never  cease. 

2  Is.  Ivii.  19,  "  I  create  the  fruit  of  the  lips."  Hos.  xiv.  3  (lit.,  our  lips,  as  calves)  :  but  as 
the  next  verse  says,  we  must  (unlike  the  Jews  of  old,  Is.  xxix.  13-21  :  Ezck.  xx.viii.  21)  ofior  to 
God  the  sacrifices  of  welldoing,  as  well  as  of  praise,  and  thank  Him  with  our  lives  as  well  as 
with  our  lips  (Matt.  xv.  1-9). 

3  xiii.  8-16.  On  this  beneficence  and  participation  of  earthly  goods  see  Rom.  xii.  13  ;  -•  Cur. 
ix.  13  ;  I  Tim.  vi.  iS. 


302  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

merit,  even  their  High  Priests  could  not  partake.  The  blood 
of  those  victims  was  sprinkled  on  the  mercy  seat,  their  bodies 
were  burnt  without  the  camp.  Since,  then,  the  Jewish  Priests 
were  forbidden  to  eat  of  the  type,  how  could  they  have  license 
to  eat  of  the  antitype?  But  we,  too,  have  our  great  sacri- 
fice, and  we  may  eat  of  it,  and  it  is  "food  indeed."  It  is  the 
sacrifice  of  Him  Who  was  offered  without  the  gate,  whose 
blood  is  sprinkled  to  sanctify  His  people,  and  to  sanctify  even 
the  heavenly  places  (xi.  12 — 28);  and  on  that  sacrifice  we  may 
live  by  perpetual  sustenance.  He  was  rejected;  He  was  thrust 
outside  the  city  to  be  offered  up.  Let  us  go  forth  to  Him, 
bearing  His  reproach.  If  we  leave  the  city  of  our  affection, 
we  are  at  the  best  but  strangers  and  sojourners  there,  and  we 
are  going  forth  to  the  Heavenly  and  the  Eternal  City.  That 
earthly  city  will  be  shaken;  the  Heavenly  City  is  one  of  those 
things  which  can  never  be  shaken,  and  will  remain.  Let  us 
then  offer  our  thankofferings  to  Him.  Those  thankofferings 
are  not  the  bullocks  enjoined  by  the  Levitic  law  (Lev.  vii. 
12);  they  are  "the  bullocks  of  our  lips,"  and  those  thank- 
offerings  will  be  acceptable  if  we  offer  therewith  the  thank- 
offerings  of  holy  lives. 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  what  is  prominent  is  the  sacrifice, 
and  our  sustenance  thereby.  No  prominence  is  given  to  the 
altar  on  which  the  sacrifice  is  offered.  It  is,  so  to  speak,  extra 
figuram.  If  in  the  mind  of  the  writer  any  significance  was  at- 
tached to  the  "altar,"  it  could  only  be  explained  as  the 
Cross,  as  it  is  understood  by  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  Este,  no  less  than  by  De  Wette  and  Bleek. 
It  was  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  that  the  Jewish  victims 
were  slain;  it  was  on  the  Cross  that  our  great  High  Priest  per- 
fected once  and  for  ever  the  offering  of  Himself.  The  Cross, 
then,  is  the  altar,  not  the  viaterial  Table  of  the  Lord.  What 
the  writer  had  in  mind  was  the  feeding  on  Christ  in  the  heart 
by  faith;  living  not  on  His  flesh,  which,  materially  considered, 
profiteth  nothing,  but  on  His  words,  which  are  spirit  and  life, 
and  of  which  they  who  rejected  Him  neither  might  nor  could 
eat.  The  "eating  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  drinking  His 
blood"  was  thfe  symbol — far  commoner,  far  less  strange,  far 
more  directly  intelHgible  to  any  one  familiar  with  Jewish 
habits  of  thought  and  expression  than  it  is  to  ourselves — of 
that  close  union  with  Him  whereby  "He  that  sanctifieth  and 
they  that  are  being  .sanctified  are  all  of  one,"  and  whereby  it 
is  not  we  who  live,  but  Christ  in  us.  The  Victim  Lamb  has 
been  once  offered    \\.  25— 2cS;,  but  after  a  heavenly  and  spirit- 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  303 

ual  manner  we  may  feed  upon  Him,  and  so  be  partakers  of 
the  Altar  until  we  see  Him  face  to  face.' 

Then  follows  an  exhortation  to  obey  and  be  subject  to  their 
leaders,'  who  watched  sleeplessly  for  their  souls  as  men  who 
would  have  to  give  an  account,  so  that  they  mi^^ht  give  their 
account  with  joy,  and  not  with  groaning,  which  would  he 
"unprofitable"  for  them — a  euphemistic  wa\  of  saying  that  it 
would  be  for  their  deep  disadvantage.  Then  he  asks  them  for 
their  prayers,  adding  a  profession  of  conscientious  sincerity, 
such  as  St.  Paul  also  had  to  make  on  more  than  one  occasion.'* 
And  he  begs  for  these  prayers  in  the  hope  that  they  might  bring 
about  a  speedier  restoration  of  the  writer  to  their  society.* 

"  But  the  God  of  Peace*  who  brought  up  from  the  dead"  that  Great  Shep- 
herd of  the  sheep,  our  Lord  Jesus,^  by  virtue  of  the  blood  of  an  eternal 
covenant, »  stabHsh  you  in  every  j^ood  work  so  that  ye  may  do  His  will,  doing 
that  in  you,»  through  jesus  Christ,  which  is  well-pleasing  before  Him,  to  whom 
be  the  glory  which  is  His  for  ever.io     Amen. 

"  But  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  bear  with  the  word  of  my  exhortation."  P'or 
indeed  I  have  written  to  you  briefly.  »'■'  Ye  know'^  that  our  brother  Timothy  has 
been  set  free,  with  whom,  if  he  come  soon,  I  will  see  you.  Salute  all  your  leaders 
and  all  the  saints.     The  Italians  salute  you.     Grace  be  with  you  all.     Amen." 

The  last  clauses  have  been  pressed  into  the  discussion  of 
the  authorship  of  the  Epistle,  but  they  are  too  vague  to  give 
any  real  clue.     All  that  we  learn  from  the  allusion  to  Timo- 

^  Whether  it  is  desirable  or  not  to  speak  of  the  Lord's  Table  as  an  altar  is  a  question  of  very 
secondary  interest.  Certainly  there  would  not  be  the  smallest  oVijection  to  doing  so  if  the 
meaning  of  the  term  was  never  perverted  in  support  offaise  and  superstitious  conclusions. 
But  even  Baxter  said  that  it  is  no  more  improper  to  call  the  Lord's  Supper  a  sacrifice  {as  was 
constantly  done  in  the  ancient  Chur:h),  than  it  is  "to  call  our  bodies,  and  our  alms,  and  our 
prayers  sacrifices."  "  And  the  naming  of  the  Table  an  altar,  as  related  to  this  representative 
sacrifice,  is  no  more  improper  than  the  other."  {Christian  Institutes,  i.  304,  quoted  by 
Wordsworth.     Baxter  applies  this  passage  directly  to  sacramental  communion.) 

2  The  emphasis  laid  on  this  injunction  perhaps  hints  at  tendencies  to  self-assertion  and 
insubordination.  In  the  importance  given  to  the  position  of  these  leaders  we  see  the  gradual 
growth  of  episcopal  powers. 

3  Acts  xxiii.  I  ;  xxiv.  36  :  i  Cor.  iv.  4  :  Gal.  i.  13,  vt\.%6\i.tQo.,  X  ?  A,  C.  D  :  Acts  xxvi.  26, 
yeTTOi^a/Liev  ;  Gal.  v.  10  :  Phil.  i.  25  :  ii.  24.  It  is  probable  that  some  would  look  with  suspi- 
cion, and  even  with  angr>'  denunciation,  at  the  spiritual  freedom  in  all  matters  of  form  which 
was  claimed  and  exercised  by  the  school  of  St.  Paul.  I'hese  concluding  sentences  of  the  Epis- 
tle greatly  resenii  le  those  of  St.  Paul,  and  were  probably  a  common  feature  in  letters  of  his 
friends.     Sec  Col.  iv.  3  ;   1  Thess.  v.  25.  ,  r  •  1     v. 

*  Phil.  22.  'I'he  circumstances  that  hindered  him  may  have  been  of  a  special  character 
("but  Satan  hindered  us,"  i  Thess.  ii.  18)  ;  we  cannot  at  all  conjecture  what  they  were, 

5  xiii.  14  :  Rom.  xv.  33  ;  xvi.  20  :   Phil.  iv.  9  ;   1  Thess.  v.  23,  etc. 

6  The  only  allusion  to  Christ's  Resurrection  in  this  Epistle  (comp.  vi.  2  ;  xi.  35  ;  Rom.  x.  7]. 
'  Ze :h.  ix.  ti  ;  Is.  Ixiii.  11.  8  ix.  ,5-18  ;  Ex.  x.xiy.  8.,     ,    . 

»  ei?  TO  T?oi%<yax  .  .  votlav  .  .  ev  vfilv  {comp.  Phil.  ii.  13,  6  evepyoji'  €v  vfj.iv  koi  to  PeAeii/ 
Kol  TO  evtpyeiv).  '"Gal.  1.5. 

11  Acts  xiii.  15.  A  courteous  apology,  lest  he  should  seem  to  have  adopted  a  tone  of  author- 
ity which  he  did  not  possess. 

'•"Acts  XV.  20  ;  xxi.  25  ;  Sia  fipaxetav  =  St'  oXCyiav  ;  1  Pet.  v.  12  :  "paiicis  pro  cop  la  rem  in 
et  argumenti  dignitate  "  (Kengel).  'ETreo-TcjAa  is  the  epistolary  aorist,  which  may  be  uhomati- 
calfy  represented  in  English  either  by  "  I  write"  or  "  I  have  written."  He  adds  "  brictly  to 
show  that  he  had  had  no  space  for  lengthened  apologies,  or  for  anything  but  .-i  direct  and  com- 
pressed argument  and  appeal.  Possibly,  however,  this  allusion  to  the  brevity  of  his  etter  is 
given  as  a  reason  why  they  should  b^ar  with  it.  "  Since  you  see  that  I  have  not  troubled  you 
at  any  great  length."  i^  Qf  "  know."     It  cannot  mean  "  Pay  friendly  regard  to. 


304  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

thy  is  that  he  had  been  detained,  probably  in  prison,  but  that 
now  he  had  been  liberated,  and  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
tiie  writer  to  visit  in  his  company  the  Church  to  which  he  was 
writing,  if  Timothy  came  sufficiently  soon  There  is  not  the 
slightest  clue  as  to  where  Timothy  or  the  writer  were  at  the 
time  when  the  letter  was  written.  Even  the  inferred  imprison- 
ment" of  Timothy  is  uncertain,  for  the  word  used  of  him  [diro- 
keKvjjLevov)^  though  used  of  .liberation  from  prison  (Acts  iii.  13, 
iv.  21),  is  also  used  of  official,  and  even  of  ordinary,  dismissal 
on  any  errand  or  mission  (Acts  xix.  41,  xxiii.  22)/  It  is,  how- 
ever, as  I  have  already  said,  a  reasonable  conjecture  that 
Timothy  obeyed  with  all  speed  the  urgent  summons  of  St. 
Paul  in  his  second  letter,  and  either  arrived  in  time  to  be 
present  at  the  martyrdom  of  the  Apostle  or  soon  afterwards. 
The  Church  in  Rome  was  then  suffering  from  the  Neronian 
persecution,  and  any  one  who  came  to  Rome  as  a  prominent 
Christian,  and  as  a  devoted  friend  of  the  greatest  Christian 
teacher,  would  have  been  little  likely  to  escape  suspicion  and 
arrest.  If  so,  we  are  unable  even  to  conjecture  the  circum- 
stances to  which  he  owed  his  acquittal.  Perhaps  his  compara- 
tive youth,  and  the  unobstrusive  timidity  of  his  character  may 
have  worked  in  his  favour.  But  if  these  conjectures  are  true, 
he  must  have  been  set  free  at  Rome,  and  this  would  be  a 
proof  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  to  some 
other  place.  The  data  are,  however,  too  slight  to  furnish  any 
ground  on  w^iich  to  build;  and  w4ien  Ewald  ventures,  from 
these  hints,  to  conjecture  that  the  letter  may  have  been  ad- 
dressed to  a  Christian  community  at  Ravenna,  he  might  have 
conjectured  a  hundred  other  places  with  just  as  much,  and 
just  as  little,  probability. 

Nor  can  anything  be  deduced  from  the  salutation  which 
the  writer  sends.  His  words  literally  translated  are,  "Those 
from  Italy  salute  you."^  If  we  give  to  these  words  the  sense 
which  they  ordinarily  bear,  they  must  mean  "the  Italians," 
just  as  "The  scribes  from  Jerusalem"  mean  " Jerusalemite 
scribes"  (Matt.  xv.  i),  and  "those  from  Cilicia"  means  "Cili- 
cians"  (Acts  vi.  9),  and  "the  Jews  from  Thessalonica"  mean 
"Thessalonian  Jews"  (Acts  xvii.  13),  and  "the  Jews  from 
Asia"  means  "Asiatic  Jews"  (Acts  xxi.  27).  But  there  is 
nothing  to  show  where  these  Italians  were  residing,  or  what 
interest  would  be  felt  in  their  salutation  by  the  purely  conjec- 
tural Church  to  which  the  letter  is  addressed. 

•  Even  Chry.sostom,  Thcophylact,  and  f  Kciimoiiius  felt  no  'certainty  that  anoKeKotiivov 
meant  •'freed  from  pnson."  -j  Scc  supra^  p.  221. 


THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  305 

The  subscription  to  the  Epistle  in  the  Alexandrine  manu- 
script i^,  "It  was  written  to  the  Hebrews  from  Rome."  That 
in  the  Moscow  Manuscript  (k)  and  in  the  Syriac  and  Coptic 
Versions  is,  "It  was  written  to  the  Hebrews  from  Italy  by 
Timotheus,"  and  this  is  adopted  in  our  received  text.  Both 
subscriptions  are  destitute  of  authority,  and  the  latter  is  in 
plain  contradiction  with  what  we  should  infer  from  the  allu- 
sion to  Timothy  in  the  letter  itself.  It  would  be  interesting 
to  us  to  know  more  of  the  history  of  the  letter,  but  this  is  no 
longer  discoverable.  Like  Melchizedek,  it  has  been  said,  the 
letter  is  ttTrarcop,  dyej-eaA-dyryros,  M'ithout  known  father  or  lineage. 
None  the  less  it  will  always  remain  as  a  priceless  possession  to 
the  Church.  Its  eloquence,  its  enthusiasm,  its  loftiness  of 
conception,  would  alone  suffice  to  stamp  it  as  a  remarkable 
work;  but  its  highest  value  lies  in  the  force  and  originality  of 
its  whole  train  of  reasoning.  No  Epistle  even  of  St.  Paul  was 
so  well  calculated  to  win  the  unconverted  Hebrews,  or  when 
they  had  embraced  Christianity,  to  save  them  from  their  temp- 
tation to  succumb  under  the  force  of  grievous  persecution,  and 
to  find  refuge  once  more  from  the  reproach  of  Christ  in  the 
Synagogue  of  their  fathers.  For  no  writer  had  ever  yet  de- 
veloped with  such  grace  and  power  the  thought  that  the  New 
Dispensation  was  not  the  ruinous  overthrow,  but  the  glorious 
fulfilment  of  the  Old;  that  the  Christian,  so  far  from  being 
robbed  of  that  viaticum  of  good  examples  which  had  been  the 
glory  of  Judaism,  could  feed  upon  them  with  a  deeper  sym- 
pathy; that  the  Temple  and  the  whole  Levitic  ritual,  so  far 
from  being  scornfully  flung  aside  by  the  follower  of  Jesus, 
did  but  shine  w4th  a  new  splendour  in  the  light  of  that  reve- 
lation which,  for  the  first  time,  shed  on  them  a  blaze  of  more 
glorious  significance.  To  retrograde  into  Judaism  after  the 
study  of  this  Epistle  would  indeed  be  to  go  back  into  the  dark- 
ness from  the  noonday.  But  yet  this  conclusion  was  brought 
home  both  to  the  Jew  and  to  the  Jewish  Christian  so  gently, 
so  considerately,  so  skilfully,  so  gradually,  that  the  reader 
was  drawn  along  as  by  a  golden  chain  of  irresistible  reason- 
ing, without  one  violent  wrench  of  his  prejudices,  or  one  rude 
shock  to  his  lifelong  convictions.  The  golden  candlestick  of 
the  Church  to  which  these  words  were  addressed  must,  indeed, 
have  been  burning  dim  if  the  tendency  of  any  of  its  members 
to  flag  or  to  apostatise — to  prefer  Moses  to  Christ,  and  the 
Temple  to  the  true  Church  of  the  firstborn — was  not  checked 
for  ever  by  arguments  which  enabled  them  to  see  their  true 
position  in  the  light  of  such  inspired  and  inspiring  wisdom. 


JUDAIC    CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

"the  lord's  brother." 

••No  man  ha\'ing  dnink  old  wine  desireth  new,  for  he  saith,  ' The  old  is  excellent.'  " — Luke 
V.  39, 

AVe  now  pass  to  yet  another  phase  of  Christianity — neither 
PauHne  nor  Alexandrian,  but  distinctively  Jewish.  Of  this 
phase — the  type  of  Christianity  which  prevailed  with  unbroken 
continuity  in  the  Holy  City  until  its  destruction,  and  was  after- 
wards maintained  among  the  Nazarenes — we  have  a  magnifi- 
cent specimen  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James. 

But  before  we  can  understand  this  Epistle,  or  enter  with 
intelligent  sympathy  into  the  truths  which  it  was  its  mission  to 
proclaim,  it  will  be  essential  for  us  to  discover  by  whom  it  was 
written. 

Now,  all  the  clue  which  the  author  gives  us  as  to  his  iden- 
tity is  by  calling  himself  "J^^'i^^s,  a  slave  of  God  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

But,  unfortunately,  the  same  name  and  the  same  descrip- 
tion is  equally  applicable  to  others.  The  name  thus  Angli- 
cised is,  in  reality,  that  of  the  old  Hebrew  patriarch  Jacob,' 
the  father  of  the  twelve  Patriarchs  who  gave  their  names  to 
the  Tribes  of  Israel.  That  "Syrian  ready  to  perish"' — the 
wretched  supplanter  who  ultimately  reached  the  moral  gran- 
deur of  a  Prince  with  God — was  what  the  Greeks  would  have 
called  the  Hero  Eponumos  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Hence  the 
name  Yakoob  was  as  common  in  Palestine  in  our  Lord's  day 
as  it  is  to  this  day  in  many  parts  of  che  East.  There  was 
among  the  Jews  a  remarkable  paucity  of  personal  names,  and 


«  In  Hebrew,  Yakoob  ;  in  Greek, 'IaKw^o«  ;  Spanish,  Tago ;  Portuguese,  Xavme  ;  French, 
Jacques  and  Jami  ;  Scotch,  Hamish.  See  the  Introduction  to  my  friend  Dr.  Plumptrc's  ex- 
cellent edition  of  the  Kpistlc  in  the  Cambridf^^e  Bible  for  Schools. 

'  "  A  Syrian  ready  to  perish  was  my  father"  (Deut.  xxvi.  5). 


"THE   lord's   brother."  307 

the  fact  that  persons,  and  even  groups  of  persons,  had  the 
same  names,  is  but  of  Httle  importance  in  defining  their  iden- 
tity, particularly  when  they  belong  to  kindred  families.  Tiie 
name  of  James  gives  us  as  little  clue  to  a  man's  identity  as 
would  the  name  William  in  Englan_d,  or  Mohammed  in  Egypt. 
Now,  in  the  little  Galilean  group  of  early  disciples  we  find 
no  less  than  six  persons  so  called.     These  are — 

1.  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  brother  of  John  (Matt.  iv. 
21;   Mark  i.  19;  Luke  v.  10). 

2.  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus  (Matt.  x.  3;  Mark  iii.  18). 

3.  James,  mentioned  with  Joses  (i.e.,  Joseph),  Simon,  and 
Judas  as  one  of  the  "brothers"  of  Jesus  (Matt.  xiii.  55,  xxvii. 
56;  Mark  vi.  3). 

4.  James,  "the  little"  brother  of  a  Joseph,  and  son  of  a 
Mary  (Mark  xv.  40)  who,  as  we  find  from  John  xix.  25,  was 
the  wife  of  Clopas. 

5.  James,  the  "Bishop"  of  Jerusalem,  "the  Lord's  brother" 
(Gal.  i.  19),  who  plays  a  leading  part  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles (Acts  XV.  13,  xxi.  8),  and  held  a  position  of  high  authority 
in  the  early  Church  (i  Cor.  xv.  7;  Gal.  i.  19,  ii.  9). 

6.  James,  the  brother  of  Jude  (Jude  i.  i). 

There  cannot  be  the  least  reasonable  doubt  that  these  six, 
who  are  referred  to  under  this  name,  are  in  reality  three. 

For  James,  the  son  of  Alph^us  (No.  2),  is  rightly  identified 
with  the  son  of  Mary  (No.  4),  who  from  his  diminutive  stature 
is  called  "the  little."'  This  is  intrinsically  probable,  and  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Clopas  is  only  the  Greek  translit- 
eration of  the  Hebrew  Chalpai,  which,  in  the  universal  Jewish 
fashion,  was  further  Grecised,  for  use  among  the  Gentiles, 
into  the  classical  name  Alphaeus. 

And  James,  "the  Lord's  brother  (No.  3)  is,  beyond  doubt, 
the  first  "Bishop"  of  Jerusalem  (No.  5)  and  the  brother  of 
Jude  (No.  6). 

And  both  of  these  were  probably  first  cousins  to  each  other, 
and  the  third  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee.  The  question  then 
arises  (i)  Which  of  these  three  is  the  author  of  the  Epistle? 
And  this  question  is  inextricably  mixed  up  with  the  further 
question  (2)  Is  the  son  of  Alphaeus  the  same  as  the  first 
"Bishop"  of  Jerusalem?  And  this  question  really  depends 
for  its  solution  on  the  question,  Who  were  our  Lord's  brethren? 
or,  in  other  words,  are  we,  by  the  term  "brethren"  to  un- 
derstand His  cousins?    But  we  have  then  further  to  ask.  If  the 

1  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  wurJ  ju-t/cpos  in  Luke  xix.  3  (Zacchacus,  "Httlc  of  stature"). 

I 


308  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Apostle,  the  son  of  Alphseus,  is  not  the  same  as  the  ^'Bishop" 
of  Jerusalem,  the  Lord's  brother,  which  of  the  two  wrote  this 
Epistle — the  Apostle  or  the  Bishop? 

It  might  have  been  thought  that  the  question  of  authorship 
was  set  at  rest  so  far  as  the  son  of  Zebedee  is  concerned. 
For— 

a.  Not  a  single  ancient  author  ever  thought  of  attributing 
the  Epistle  to  him. 

yS.  He  was  the  first  martyr  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  and 
since  his  martyrdom  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Herod  Agrippa 
I.,  A.D.  44,  fourteen  years  after  the  Ascension,^  the  Epistle, 
if  written  by  him,  would  be  the  earliest  work  of  the  entire 
canon.  The  allusions  of  the  Epistle,  and  the  state  of  circum- 
stances which  it  describes  as  existing  in  the  Church,  are  in- 
compatible with  this  supposition.  Setting  aside  for  the  pres- 
ent the  question  whether  it  was  meant  to  be  a  polemical  answer 
to  those  who  misinterpreted  or  exaggerated  the  views  of  St. 
Paul,  it  is  clear  on  other  grounds  that  it  could  not  have  been 
written  so  early  as  a.d.  44.  For  it  is  addressed  to  the  twelve 
tribes  of  the  Dispersion,  and  until  the  missionary  labours  of 
St.  Paul,  Christianity  had  not  spread  to  the  Jews  throughout 
the  world.  Even  those  of  Asia  Minor,  as  well  as  those  of 
Greece,  heard  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  for  the  first  time 
from  his  lips.  The  doctrine  of  "justification  by  faith,"  in 
that  distinctive  form  which  alone  rendered  it  liable  to  perver- 
sion,' had  never  been  previously  preached  by  any  Christian 
teacher.  It  found  its  great  exponent  in  the  Apostle  of  the 
Centiles,  and  its  elaborate  development  in  the  Epistles  to  the 
Galatians  and  Romans.  And,  not  to  dwell  on  other  points, 
the  whole  tone  of  the  letter  shows  that  it  is  addressed  to 
Churches  which  were  liable  to  fall  into  a  slumbering  Christi- 
anity, and  not  to  Churches  which  were  feeling  the  glow  of 
their  first  love.  Respect  of  persons,  for  instance,  had  already 
grown  up  in  these  Jewish-Christian  communities.  These 
reasons  have  been  so  strongly  and  universally  felt  that  not  one 
of  the  Fathers  has  imagined  that  this  letter  was  written  bv  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  the  first  Apostolic  martyr.  The  only  au- 
thority, if  the  name  "authority"  can  be  given  to  such  a  care- 
less mistake,  is  to  be  found  in  a  single  Latin  manuscript  of  the 
ninth  century.  The  MSS.  of  the  Peshito  version  do,  indeed, 
attribute  it  to  "James  the  Apostle;"  but  it  is  idle  to  interpret 
this  to  mean  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  when  it  is  far  more 


Acts  xii.  2.  82  Pet.  iii.  15. 


"THE   LORD'S    15R0TI1ER."  309 

probable  that  the  term  was  meant  to  describe  James,  the  son 
of  Alphceus;  or  (if  not)  that  the  term  Apostle— in  accordance 
with  the  /ess  specific  use  of  it  in  the  ApostoHc  age' — is  meant 
to  describe  the  general  dignity  of  James,  the  J.ord's  brother. 
It  is  therefore  to  be  regretted  that  so  baseless  a  theory 
should  have  been  supported  by  an  English  commentator  in  one 
of  the  latest  editions  of  this  Epistle.'  The  arguments  which 
he  adduces  are  entirely  inconclusive.  The  supposed  improb- 
ability that  one  of  the  inner  circle  of  Apostles  should  have 
passed  away  without  any  written  memorial  of  his  teaching 
would  be  worth  nothing  as  an  argument  even  if  the  death  of 
the  son  of  Zebedee  had  not  occurred  at  so  early  an  epoch. 
The  supposed  resemblances  to  the  teaching  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist are  of  the  most  general  character;  they  might  occur 
equally  well  in  {7/!v  Christian  writer,^  and  might  be  illustrated 
by  many  other  parallels  Moreover,  it  is  more  than  doubtful 
whether  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  had  ever  been  a  disciple  of 
the  Baptist.-  It  is  implied  that  he  was  not  with  the  little  group 
of  disciples  who  were  with  the  Baptist  at  Jordan  when  they  first 
heard  the  call  of  Christ.  The  resemblances  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  would  be  accounted  for  equally 
well  if  the  writer  were  the  son  of  Alphgeus.  They  do  not  re- 
quire the  theory  that  the  writer  heard  the  sermon,  since  they 
might  have  been  derived  from  intercourse  with  St.  Matthew, 
or  from  a  perusal  of  the  outlines  which  perhaps  formed  the 
original  nucleus  of  the  Gospels."  But  even  if  they  did  in- 
volve the  certainty  that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  had  personally 
heard  Christ's  gracious  words,  there  is  not  the  least  unlikeli- 
hood that  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  may  have  been  seated 
as  well  as  the  son  of  Zebedee  amid  that  listening  throng.  The 
notion  that  the  phrase  "The  Lord  of  Glory"  renders  it  prob- 
able that  the  writer  had  seen  the  Transfiguration  is  an  argu- 
ment so  fragile  and  so  far-fetched  "  that  it  could  only  be  dic- 
tated by  despair  of  more  valid  indications.  Vain -glory,  rivalry, 
and  self-seeking  may  have  existed  in  the  Apostolic  band,  and 
the  son  of  Zebedee  may  himself  have  shared  in  these  frailties, 
as  he  did  in  a  vehement  intolerance  which  savoured  rather 
of  the  Elijah-spirit  than  the  spirit  of  Christ;'  but  it  is  surely 

1  Andronicus,  Junias  (Rom.  xvi.  7).  2  ijy  the  Rev.  F.  T.  Bassett  (Hagsters,  1876). 

3  Jas.  i.  22,  27  ;  ii.  15,  16,  19,  20 ;  v.  1-6  (conip.  Matt.  iii.  8-12  ;  Luke  iii.  11). 

*  It  seems  to  be  doubtful  whether  the  word  /o^m  in  the  well-known  passage  of  Papias  means 
"  discourses ;  "  but  in  any  case  discourses  of  our  Lord  must  have  been  eaily  committed  to  \Yru- 
ing  by  some  of  the  disciples.  u-     u 

s  It  was  a  common  and  well-known  Jewish  designation  with  reference  to  the  .Shechinah. 
Compare  "  cherubim  of  glory,"  lieb.  i.  3  ;  ix.  5  ;  Acts  vii.  2  ;  Eph.  i.  17,  supra,  p.  266. 

<>  Luke  ix.  54. 


3IO  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Strange  to  adiUice  the  warnings  against  these  faults,  and  the 
reference  to  Elias,  as  conferring  any  probabiHty  on  a  theory 
which  otherwise  has  nothing  in  its  favour.  The  inferences 
drawn  from  the  paralleHsm  of  some  passages  to  the  First 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter,'  and  to  the  great  eschatological  discourse 
of  our  Lord,  are  as  much  overstrained  as  the  others.  They 
do  not  confer  on  this  hypothesis  any  claim  to  serious  atten- 
tion, and  it  may  be  regarded  as  finally  dismissed. 

2.  There  is  more  to  be  said  for  the  claim  of  the  son  of 
Alphajus."  That  is  supported  by  the  ancient  theory  that  the 
son  of  Alphaeus  was,  in  fact,  the  same  person  as  the  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem.^  Beyond  this  theory,  however,  it  has  nothing  in 
Its  favour.  For  this  "James  the  little,"  or  "James,  the  son 
of  Alphasus,"  is  to  us  a  name  and  nothing  more.  Not  one 
incident  is  narrated  of  him;  not  one  utterance  is  attributed  to 
him  in  the  Gospels;  not  one  fact  is  preserved  respecting  him 
by  any  tradition  older  than  those  recorded,  or  accepted,  or 
invented,  by  Nicephorus  in  the  fourteenth  century.''  It  is  in- 
excusable to  argue  a  priori  as  Lange  does  that  the  son  of  Al- 
phaeus fuustht  James,  "the  Lord's  brother,"  and  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  because  "the  assumption  is  highly  improbable  that 
James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  should,  in  so  short  a  time,  have 
vanished  from  the  stage  past  all  tracing,  without  being  thought 
worthy  of  having  even  his  death  noticed  by  Luke,  the  histo- 
rian, and  that  there  should  suddenly  have  sprung  up  some 
non-apostolical  James,  who  actually  occupied  a  prominent 
position  among  the  Apostles."  The  instance  of  Philip  might 
be  alone  sufficient  to  show  the  futility  of  the  argument;  for 
Philip  the  deacon  springs  into  extreme  prominence  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  without  any  further  mention  of  Philip  the 
Apostle.  When  Lange  says,  further,  that  it  is  "purely  incon- 
ceivable" that  James,  "a  recently-converted  non-Apostle," 
should  have  been  acknowledged  so  early  as  a  man  of  Apos- 
tolical authority,  it  is  strange  that  he  should  regard  as  "purely 
inconceivable"  what  was  an  actual  fact  in  the  cases  of  Barna- 
bas and  Paul.     When  he  adds,  "If  anything,  it  is  still  more 


'  .See  supra,  p.  85. 

"Jo  argue  that  "James  the  Lonl's  brother"  ww-y^"  have  been  one  of  the  Apostles,  from 
Gal.  I.  19 ;  I  Cor.  xv.  7,  Is  to  icnorc  the  commonest  facts  of  the  (Jreek  lan^nasje.  Even  //in 
these  passages  he  were  ulentihed  with,  not  excluded  from,  the  number  of  the  Apostles,  they 
would  prove  nothmg ;  for  James,  the  Hishop  of  Jerusalem,  was  an  Apostle  just  as  much  as 
Barnabas  or  Paul. 

'In  the  Ap.stoHcal  Constitution  (ii.  55)  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus  is  especially  distin- 
guislicil  from  the  l^jrd's  brother. 

*  Nicephorus  (//.  /•:.  ii.  40)  says  that  he  preached  in  South-West  Palestine,  and  was  ulti- 
mately crucified  at  Ostracine,  in  Lower  Kgypt.  See  Cave,  Lives  of  the  Apostles,  and  supra, 
p.  56. 


**THE    LORD'S    BROTHER."  31I 

inconceivable  that  the  names  of  three  real  Apostles  (James, 
Simon,  Jude)  should  have  been  extinguished  without  all  trace 
by  the  names  of  three  non- Apostles,"  he  is  makin^r  capital  out 
of  an  identity  of  names  which  is  not  of  the  smallest  signifi- 
cance. Tor  that  the  prominence  of  every  one  of  the  twelve, 
except  Peter  and  John,  was  from  the  first  obliterated,  so  far 
as  our  Scriptural  record  is  concerned,  by  the  names  of  others 
who  were  not  among  the  original  twelve,  is  proved  by  the 
New  Testament  itself,  and  by  every  trace  of  early  Church 
history.  And  as  for  the  names  James,  Simon,  Jude,  it  is  as 
certain  that  no  one  could  have  taken  a  walk  through  the  streets 
of  Jerusalem  without  meeting  dozens,  perhaps  scores,  of 
people  who  bore  one  or  other  of  those  names,  as  it  is  that  you 
would  meet  scores  of  people  who  bore  the  names  of  John, 
George,  or  Thomas  in  a  walk  through  London  streets.  The 
fact  is,  that  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  the  majority  are  only 
known  to  us  as  names,  sometimes  undistinguished  by  a  single 
incident.  We  know  less  of  the  son  of  Alphaeus  than  of  any 
one  among  their  number.  We  are  told  the  name  of  his  father 
and  of  his  mother,  and  nothing  more. 

His  father  was  Alphaeus,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  w^as  the 
same  as  Clopas  (John  xix.  25;  Matt.  x.  3).^  It  is  usually  as- 
serted that  he  cannot  be  the  Cleopas  to  whom  our  Lord  ap- 
peared on  the  road  to  Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv.  18),  because  that 
name  is  an  abbreviated  form  of  Cleopater,  whereas  Cleopas, 
or  Chalpai,  is  a  Hebrew  name,  of  which  Alphseus  is  the  cur- 
rent assonance  adopted  for  intercourse  with  the  Gentile  world. 
But  it  is  as  little  improbable  that  this  disciple  may  have  had 
both  names,  as  that  Judas  should  have  been  called  both  Leb- 
basus  and  Thaddaeus.  However  this  may  be,  we  know  nothing 
more  of  Alphaeus  except  that  the  name  of  his  wife  was  Mary, 
and  that  his  other  sons  were  Matthew  and  Thomas.  ''Jude 
of  James"  would  be  yet  another  son,  if  we  could  be  sure  that 
it  meant  "brgther  of  James."  In  the  absence,  however,  of 
any  evidence  to  the  contrary,  it  is  more  natural  to  take  it  to 
mean  ''son  of  James." 

But  was  the  Mary,  \\\w)  was  the  wife  of  Alphaeus,  a  sister 
of  the  Virgin  Mary?'  This  has  been  inferred  from  John  xix. 
25,  vv^here  the  punctuation  which  some  would  adopt  is,  "there 
stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  his  mother,  and  his  mother's  sis- 

1  The  E.  v.  has  Cleophas,  which  only  comes  from  late  Latin  MSS. 

-  In  the  paucity  of  Jewish  names,  and  the  commonness  of  the  name  Mary,  there  is  no  deci- 
sive objection  to  this  view  from  the  fact  that,  in  this  case,  two  sisters  would  have  borne  the  same 
name.  No  doubt  sucli  instances  are  rare,  but  I  have  found  several  in  ancient  and  modem 
history. 


312  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ter  Marv  the  wife  of  Clopas,  and  Mary  Magdalene."  But, 
apart  from  the  authority  of  the  Peshito,  which  inserts  "and" 
before  Mary,  it  is  now  generally  accepted  that  by  this  verse 
four  women  are  intended,  namely — (i)  The  Virgin  Mary;  (2) 
her  sister  Salome,  who  being  St.  John's  mother,  is  left  un- 
named by  his  delicate  reserve;  and  the  two  other  Maries, 
namely— (3)  the  wnfe  of  Clopas,  and  (4)  Mary  of  Magdala. 

Is  it,  then,  the  case  that  Alphasus,  or  Clopas,  was  the 
brother  of  St.  Joseph,  and  therefore  (legally)  the  uncle  of  our 
Lord?  The  suggestion  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  Hege- 
sippus.'  It  may  be  true  or  not;  but  that  the  sons  of  Alphasus 
were  our  Lord's  "brothers"  is  only  a  conjecture  of  Jerome, 
made  in  the  interests  of  an  ecclesiastical  hypothesis.  His  au- 
thority gave  it  currency,  and  consequently  a  rash  conjecture, 
treated  even  by  its  author  as  unimportant,  became  the  favour- 
ite theory  of  the  Western  Church. '" 

A  still  later  afterthought — planted  upon  this  groundless 
conjecture,  like  a  rootless  stalk  on  a  thin  soil — is  the  guess 
that  Alphceus  died  early,  and  left  all  his  sons  to  be  supported 
by  his  brother  Joseph;  that  they  thus  became  legally  Joseph's 
sons,  and  can  thus  be  called  "the  brethren  of  the  Lord." 

These  are  hypotheses  invented  to  support  a  conception  of 
which  no  trace  is  discoverable  in  Scripture,  and  which  is  mixed 
up  with  many  aberrations  of  Essenian  and  Gnostic  asceticism. 
All  that  we  know  about  James  the  Apostle  is  that  he  was  a 
son  of  Alphaeus,  and  that  he  was  called  "the  little."  All  that 
we  can  reasonably  conjecture  is  that  he  was  "a  cousin  of  the 
Lord." 

3.  It  may  be  regarded  as  certain,  in  accordance  w^ith  an- 
cient tradition,^  and  wath  the  best  of  modern  opinions,  that 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  is  the  "Bishop  of  Jerusalem,"  and 
the  "brother  of  the  Lord." 

But  is  he  identical  with  the  son  of  Alphaeus?  There  seems 
to  have  been  a  confused  notion  among  some  ancient  writers 
that  he  was,  and  this  view  is  accepted  by  many  modern  com- 
mentators, ariiong  whom  I  may  mention  Lange  and  Bishop 
Wordsworth. 

The  identification  is,  however,  only  possible  to  those  who 
hold,  in  despite  of  the  plain  evidence  of  the  Synoptists,  and 

>  Ap.  Euseb.  //.  R.  iv.  22. 

'  Thus  in  the  Church  of  England  July  2Sth  is  dedicated  to  the  Son  of  Zebedee,  and  May 
ist  to  St.  PhiHp  and  St.  James;  and  since  part  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  is  read  on  that 
day,  It  is  clear  that  "  the  son  of  Alphajus"  is  identified  with  "  the  brother  of  the  Lord."  In 
the  (Jrcek  Church  they  are  distinguished— October  9th  is  dedicated  to  the  son  of  Alphaeus, 
and  October  a^rd  to  the  brother  of  the  Lord. 

»  Kuscb.  //.  E.  ii.  23  ;  Jcr.  De  Virr.  lllustr.  2. 


''THE    LORDS    BROTHER."  313 

Still  more  of  vSt.  John,  that  our  Lord's  "l:)rethren"  were  amon'j: 
the  number  of  His  Apostles.  For  if  James,  the  Lord's 
brother,  was  indeed  the  san-yc  person  as  the  son  of  Alphaius, 
then  Jude  also,  and,  according  to  some,  Simon  too,  and  Mat- 
thew, and  perhaps  Thomas,  were  "brethren  of  the  Lord," 
since  they,  too,  were  sons  of  Alpha^us.  So  that  we  shall  have 
this  singular  phenomenon — that  whereas  four  only  of  our 
Lord's  "brethren"  are  mentioned  by  name,  viz.,  James  and 
Joseph  and  Judas  and  Simon,  tJirce  out  of  these  four  were 
Apostles,  and  certainly  one,  if  not  two  other  sons  of  Alphceus 
were  also  Apostles;  and  yet  we  are  expressly  told  that  ''neither 
did  His  brethren  believe  in  Hi/n/^^  An  attempt  is  made  to  get 
rid  of  this  plain  contradiction  by  saying  that  His  brethren 
had  not  "the  resigned  obedience  of  faith,"  so  that  in  the  same 
sense  it  might  have  been  said  that  neither  Peter,  nor  Thomas, 
nor  even  the  Blessed  Virgin,  believed  on  Him!"  And  this 
theory  is  (ostensibly)  to  be  built  on  the  notion  that  it  is  "in- 
conceivable" that  a  James,  a  Simon,  and  a  Jude  should  have 
been  Apostles,  and  yet  that  there  should  have  been  another 
James,  another  Simon,'  and  another  Jude  who  became  dis- 
tinguished in  the  Church.  There  is,  however,  nothing  incon- 
ceivable, nothing  about  it  even  improbable.  There  were  hun- 
dreds, and  even  thousands,  who,  at  this  epoch,  bore  those 
names.  Even  among  the  twelve  Apostles  there  were  two 
Srnions,  two  Jameses,  and  two  Judes;  among  the  handful  of 
those  first  connected  with  Christianity  there  were  nine  Simons, 
three  Jameses,  six  Josephs,  and  four  Judes;  and  in  the  very 
narrow  circle  of  early  disciples  there  were  five  Maries.''  Any 
one,  therefore,  who  considers  this  identity  of  names  to  be 
"purely  inconceivable,"  must  lie  extremely  limited  alike  in 
his  power  of  imagination^  and  in  his  knowledge  of  facts. 

I  hold  it,  then,  as  certain  that  James,  the  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  "the  Lord's  brother,"  was  ?iot  tht  same  person  as 
the  Apostle,  t*he  son  of  Alphseus."  The  latter  was  one  of  the 
Twelve;  the  former  was  one  of  those  who  up  to  a  late  period 
in  the  life  of  Christ  "did  not  believe  on  Him." 

But  having  advanced  thus  far,  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
-avoid  saying  one  word  more  on  the  question  of  the  Lord's 


J  John  vii.  5.  3  Lange,  Introd.  %  ii.  i,  and  in  Herzog's  Cyclopaedia,  s.  v.  Jacobus. 

3  Tradition,  as  preserved  by  Hegesippiis  [ap.  Kuseb.  iv.  23),  says  that  Simon,  son  of  Clo- 
pas,  succeeded  James  as  Bishop  of  lerusalem  because  he  was  our  Ix)rd's  cousin  (a.vi^i.0%). 

4  (i)  The  Virgin  :  (2)  the  wife  of  Clopas  ;  (3)  Mary  Magdalene  ;  {4)  Mary  of  Hcthany  _:  (5) 
Mary,  mother  of  John  Mark.  ^  Hegesippus  says,  67rei  ttoAAoi  'Ia*cuj0oi  eKoAoi/n-o. 

«  This  denial  of  their  identity  has  the  powerful  support  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  De  Kesurr. 
Orat.  ii. ;  Chrysost.  in  Matt.  Horn.  5  :  and  Jerome  [who,  however,  wavers]  in  Isai.  xvu., 
and  in  Gal.  \.  19. 


314  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

brethren — (i)  Were  they,  as  Helvidius  thought,  the  sons  of 
Joseph  and  Mar)^?  or  (2)  were  they,  as  Jerome  fancied,  the 
adopted  nephews  of  Joseph?  or  (3)  were  they,  as  Epiphanius 
ar<jiied,  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  previous  or,  (4)  as  Theophylact 
sugi^ests,  by  a  Levirate  marriage? 

Now,  on  this  question  I  have  no  desire  either  to  dogma- 
tise or  to  press  my  own  opinion;  but  I  will  endeavour  once 
more,  in  the  fewest  and  simplest  words,  to  indicate  the  infer- 
ence to  which  the  Gospels  seem  to  point.  And  in  doing  so  I 
shall  dwell  on  two  considerations,  which,  in  spite  of  the  enor- 
mous mass  of  literature  upon  the  subject,  have  been  all  but 
universally  neglected. 

The  inference,  whether  correct  or  not,  to  which  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Evangelists  would  naturally  lead  us,  certainly  is 
that  "the  Lord's  brothers"  were  the  children  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  born  in  holy  wedlock  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  Can 
any  one  honestly  say  that  such  is  not,  at  least,  \h& prijjid  facie 
conclusion  which  every  reader  would  draw  from  the  Gospel 
allusions  and  the  Gospel  narrative? 

In  the  very  first  chapter  of  the  Gospel  we  are  told  that 
"Joseph  took  unto  him  his  wife,  and  knew  her  not  until  she 
brought  forth  her  son,  her  firstborn,  and  called  his  name 
Jesus."  Now  would  not  the  aorist  "took  unto  him"  {TTapeX-a/Se) 
in  connexion  with  the  imperfect  tense  "knew  her  not"  (eytVojo-- 
K€v),  to  say  nothing  of  the  words  ''her  son,  her  firstborn,"' 
naturally  lead  us,  in  any  ordinary  case,  to  conclude  that  Joseph 
and  Mary  lived  together  in  wedded  union  after  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  and  that  children  were  born  to  them? 

Of  course  the  verse  is  not  in  itself  decisive.  Instances 
nay  be  adduced  in  which  an  •action  is  said  ;/^/  to  have  hap- 
pened ///////  a  certain  time,  and  yet  is  not  thereby  asserted  to 
have  happened  after  the  lapse  of  the  fixed  period.  Other  in- 
stances may  be  quoted  in  which  the  word  ** firstborn"  does 
not  necessitate  a  belief  in  the  birth  of  subsequent  children. 
Proofs  to  this  effect  were  adduced  by  Bishop  Pearson,  and 
have  been  repeated  by  hundreds  since.  But  this  much  may 
l>c  affirmed— that  if  it  had  been  a  heresy  to  deny  the  Perpetual 
Virginity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin — (as  St.  Augustine  and  others 
have  tried  to  hint,  in  accordance  with  the  fatal  tendency  of 
theologians  to  brand  as  heretical  everything  that  does  not 
coincide  with  their  own  inferences)—' then  the  Evangelists 
would  not  have  gone  out  of  their  way  to  use  an  exceptional 

>  The  word.s  "her  firstborn"  arc  omitted  in  J<,  B,  Z,  etc.,  and  must  be  regarded  as  uncer- 


*'THE  lord's  brother."  315 

idiom,  which  seemed  to  countenance  such  a  heresy.  They 
would,  on  the  contrary,  have  been  anxious  to  avoid  \:iu^ua'^'e 
which  could  not  but  lead  ordinary  readers  to  understand  them 
in  the  very  sense  which  (in  that  case)  they  would  have  most 
wished  to  exclude. 

And  yet  so  little  anxiety  do  they  show  under  this  head, 
that,  without  so  much  as  a  single  exception,  r7'frj'  phrase  they 
use,  and  every  incident  they  record,  tends  directly  to  confirm 
an  error  which,  if  it  be  an  error,  they  could  again  and  again 
have  rendered  impossible  by  a  single  line  of  explanation,  or 
even  by  a  single  word; — nay,  even  by  using  correct  and  ac- 
curate expressions  instead  of  others  which,  if  it  be  necessary 
to  believe  in  the  Perpetual  Virginity,  were,  strictly  speaking, 
inaccurate  and  incorrect.  If  it  were  indeed  "heretical,"  as 
was  asserted  by  third  and  fourth  century  dogmatists,  to  doubt 
whether  Scripture  taught  the  Perpetual  Virginity  of  the  Vir- 
gin, could  any  expressions  have  been  more  unfortunately  con- 
ducive to  heresy  than  such  a  verse  as  Matt.  iii.  55,  "Is  not 
His  mother  called  Mary?  and  His  brethren  James,  and  Joses, 
and  Simon,  and  Judas?" 

a.  For,  to  take,  first,  the  theory  of  St.  Jerome,  if  these 
brethren  of  Jesus  were  in  reality  His  cousins^  what  answer  can 
be  given  to  the  question,  Why  did  not  the  Evangelists  call  them 
so?  Certainly  not  that  they  had  no  word  expressive  of  that 
meaning.  Such  words  were  ready  to  their  hands  in  the  Greek 
ancpsioi^  or  sungeneis — "cousins"  or  "kinsmen" — or  in  very 
common  periphrases.*  With  such  terms  they  were  perfectly 
familiar.  If  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon  were  habitually 
called  ''brothers''  when  they  were  only  ''cousins,'"  it  can  only 
be  said  that  they  were  needlessly  and  systematically  misnamed. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  Hebrews  used  terms  of  relationship 
very  vaguely,  and,  in  accordance  with  their  usage,  our 
Lord's  cousins  would  quite  normally  have  been  called  His 
brethren. 

Now,  although  this  assertion  has  been  repeated  by  writer 
after   writer   down   to   our  own  day,  it  is  quite  untenable.' 

1  at'e'i^ios.  Col.  iv.  lo  (incorrectly  rendered  "sister's  son")  ;  (rvyyei'^s,  Luke  i.  36;  ii.  44  ; 
xiv.  \i  ;  John  xviii.  26,  etc, 

2  I  insisted  strongly  on  this  point  in  an  article  on  the  word  "  Brethren  "  in  Smith's  Dic- 
tionaty  0/ the  BihU\  nearly  twenty  years  ago  ;  but,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  the  point  has  never 
been  noticed,  and  the  objection  never  answered.  One  of  the  latest  popular  editors  of  the  Epis- 
tle of  St.  James  can  still  repeat,  "  that  in  Holy  Scripture  there  are  four  senses  of  brotherhood, 
namely,  of  blood,  of  tribe,  of  nation,  and  of  friendship,  and  the  three  last  0/ these  7v ill  all 
af>ply  to  the  case  in  point."  To  talk  thus  is  to  ignore  the  dictates  of  conniion  sense.  We 
might  just  as  well  argue  that  any  two  persons  who,  through  four  diflerent  historical  records, 
were  invariably  called  "brothers,"  were  perhaps  only  Freemasons,  who  are  often  called 
"brethren."     The  source  of  this  mistake  (as  of  so  many  others)  seems  to  be  St.  Augustnic, 


3l6  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

There  are  four  senses  of  the  word  "brethren."  (i.)  There 
is  the  ^j,v//<';77/ sense  in  which  it  is  appHcable  to  all  mankind. 
(2.)  There  is  the  narrower  sense  in  which  it  is  applied  to  men 
of  the  same  race,  nation,  or  creed,  or  to  dwellers  in  the  same 
town.  (3.)  'J'here  is  the  still  narrower  sense  in  which  it  is  ap- 
j)lied  to  all  members  of  the  same  kin  or  family.  And  all  these 
being  metaphorical  senses,  there  is  (4.)  the  only  proper  and 
literal,  sense  in  which  it  means  the  sons  of  the  same,  or  of  one 
of  the  same,  parents.'  Now  certainly  the  term  "brethren" 
might  have  been  applied  emotionally,  or  metaphorically,  or 
loosely,  or  on  any  special  occasion,  to  the  Lord's  cousins,  or 
He  may  so  have  addressed  them  by  way  of  affection.^  But  to 
assert  that  "cousins"  could  be  called  "brothers"  in  ordinary 
prose,  time  after  time,  throughout  a  perfectly  plain  and  simple 
history,  with  no  hint  whatever  that  they  were  7iot  "brothers" 
in  the  everyday  sense,  and  always  in  connexion  with  the  actual 
mother  of  Him  whose  "brothers"  they  are  called — and  not  sel- 
dom when  His  mother  with  these  "brothers"  appear  together 
on  the  scene  with  a  desire  to  check,  or  control,  or  dictate  to 
their  Divine  kinsman — is  to  assert  something  for  which  no 
analogy  is  to  be  found  either  in  Semitic  or  any  other  literature 
in  the  whole  world.  No  language  could  be  contented  with  the 
use  of  terms  habitually  misleading.  In  this  case  such  a  form 
of  speech  would  not  only  be  misleading,  but  could  only  be 
termed  a  direct  encouragement  to  views  which  theologians 
have  attempted  to  represent  as  all  but  heretical.  That  John 
and  James,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  were  first-cousins  of  our 
Lord  may  now  be  regarded  as  a  nearly  certain  conclusion. 
If,  on  the  common  theory,  His  other  cousins,  who  "did  not 
believe  on  Him, ' '  are  ahvays  called  His  '  'brethren, ' '  how  com.es 
it  that  this  term  is  never  once  or  by  any  chance  applied  to 
these  first-cousins  who  /V^  believe  on  Him,  and  of  whom  one 
was  His  specially-beloved  disciple?  But  to  refute  the  Hiero- 
nymian  theory  again — though  there  will  probably  be  found 
commentators  to  repeat  it  till  the  end  of  time — can  only  be 


Kvau^.  Trnct.  it,  S.  Jo  xxviii.  3  :  "Consan^uinei  Virginis  Mariae  fratres  Domini  diceban- 
tiir.  hrat  enim  lonaitrtuihuis  ticripturarum  aJ>J>ellare  fratres  quoslibet  consatiguineos 
it  cognatioHtf  f*riif>ini)Hos" 

'  W\\>z\-\  r.isJu.p  Wordsworth  and  others  speak  of  the  words  "  brother"  and  "  sister"  in  thtj 

>tainei>t  bum,;  usl-iI  for  "cousin"  "in  the  Hebrew  sense,"  on  what  basis  does  this 

.iencralisatioii  rest  ?     In  thr  New  Testament  there  is  not  a  single  i?istance  ofsuc/i 

,  •.     In  ihc  Old  restaincnt  [i.e.,  in  a  literature  which  spreads  over  a  thousand  years), 

the  Hebrew  word  hK  is  used  twice  only  in  a  loose  general  sense.     In  every  other  mstanco 

(not  metaphorical)  it  has  its  proper  meaning.     The  sacred  writers  usually  mean  what  they 

a  This  is  unlikely,  because  He  never  so  addressed  even  John,  the  disciple  whom  He  loved. 


"THE  lord's  ijrotiikr."  317 

regarded  as  a  slayino:  of  the  slain;  like  the  soldier  in  Ariosto,' 
it  goes  on  fighting  without  being  aware  that  it  is  dead." 

The  whole  theory  sprang  from  a  notion  that  it  would  be 
derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  the  Virgin,  or  of  our  Lord,  that 
she  should  subsequently  have  become  a  mother  of  children 
born  in  ordinary  wedlock.  Such  a  theory,  1  freely  admit,  might 
better  accord  with  ouf  <?/;7^/7  conceptions.  But  can  we  ven- 
ture to  hold  it  if  the  natural  interpretation  of  so  many  Scrip- 
ture passages  seems  to  point  the  other  way?  The  only  text 
which  has  ever  been  quoted  from  the  whole  range  of  Scripture 
in  favour  of  the  Aeiparthenia,  or  Perpetual  Virginity,  is  Ezek. 
xliv.  2.  It  is — "This  gate  shall  be  shut  and  shall  not  be 
opened,  and  no  man  shall  enter  in  by  it,  because  the  Lord  the 
God  of  Israel  hath  entered  in  by  it;  it  shall  be  shut."  But  to 
quote  such  a  verse  in  these  days  as  possessing  any  controver- 
sial value  on  this  question  is  an  insult  to  common  sense.  If 
such  allusions  can  be  so  applied,  then  we  can  prove  anything 
whatever.  Can  it  be  called  anything  short  of  a  deplorable 
Kabbalism  to  make  such  a  use  of  a  description  of  the  Eastern 
Gate  of  the  Prophet's  mystic  Temple,  into  which  "the  Prince" 
was  to  enter  by  "the  porch,"  and  in  which  he  was  to  sit  "to 
eat  bread  before  the  Lord?"  If  such  perversions  of  Scripture 
were  permissible,  it  would  then  be  quite  fair  to  say  of  the 
Bbile— 

"  Hie  liber  est  in  quo  quaerit  sua  dogmata  quisque 
Invenit  et  pariter  dogmata  quisque  sua." 

The  belief  in  the  Aeiparthenia — of  which  there  is  no  trace 
in  the  Church  for  centuries — had  its  origin  in  two  tendencies, 
both  perilous,  both  unscriptural.  The  one — the  tendency  to 
exalt  the  Virgin  to  superhuman  dignity — is  markedly  ignored, 
and  even  discountenanced,  in  Scripture.  The  other — the  ten- 
dency to  disparage  the  wedded  state,  and  to  exalt  celibacy  into 
a  counsel  of  perfection^ — is  not  only  discouraged  in  Scripture, 
but  had  its  root  in  dangerous  heresies,  and  runs  counter  to 
the  express  and  repeated  teachings  of  Holy  Writ. 

Every  Christian  will  feel  that  the  Mother  of  the  Lord  ought 
to  receive  the  deepest  honour  and  reverence.  She  was  highly 
favoured,  and  could  not  have  been  thus  selected  out  of  the 

*  "  II  pover'  uom  che  non  sen  era  accorto 
Andava  combattendo,  ed  era  morto." 

— Orland.  Innant. 
2  St.  Jerome  quotes  no  tradition  in  its  favour;  speaks  of  it  very  waveringly':  and  finally 
[Ep.  ad  Hedibiain)  seems  to  abandon  it,  or  at  least  to  regard  it  wuh  complete  indifterencc. 
It  had  served  the  purpose  of  exalting  Virginity  when  he  wrote  against  Hclvidius  in  A.u.  383  ; 
but  twenty-three  or  more  years  later  (a.d.  406)  he  has  ceased  to  regard  it  as  important.  (See 
Lightfoot,  Galatians,  p.  248.) 


3l8  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

myriads  of  the  human  rece  to  be  the  mother  of  the  Saviour 
without  the  possession  of  conspicuous  gifts  and  graces.  Yet, 
as  though  with  definite  purpose,  she  is  left  in  the  depths  of 
her  ahnost  unbrolcen  seclusion  and  reserve.  In  some  of  the 
few  instances  in  which  this  silence  respecting  her  is  broken, 
she  is  by  no  means  singled  out  for  special  commendation. 
After  the  return  of  Joseph  and  Mary  with  the  child  Jesus  to 
Nazareth,  she  is  only  mentioned  or  alluded  to  on  six  or  seven 
occasions.  One  of  these  was  when  she  and  Joseph  lost  Jesus, 
and  finding  Him  in  the  Temple,  she  addressed  Him  in  words 
of  sorrowing  and  almost  reproachful  wonder,  and  understood 
not  His  reply.*  Another  was  when,  at  Cana,  in  answer  to  her 
faint  suggestion  that  He  should  work  a  miracle.  He  said  to 
her,  "Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  thee?"^  A  third — and 
perhaps  a  fourth — was  when  she  came  with  His  brethren — 
who  "did  not  believe  on  Him" — to  seek  Him,^  and  even,  as 
St.  Mark  tells  us,  "to  lay  hold  on  Him, "^  thinking  that  His 
enthusiasm,  which  they  could  neither  measure  nor  understand, 
was  getting  the  better  of  Him.  On  that  occasion,  as  though 
with  the  express  view  of  discouraging  every  attempt  to  exalt 
His  relatives  after  the  flesh.  He  exclaimed,  as  He  looked  round 
on  those  who  were  sitting  about  Him,  "Behold  my  mother 
and  my  brethren!"  And,  again,  when  a  woman  of  the  multi- 
tude exclaimed,  in  a  burst  of  emotion,  how  blessed  His  mother 
must  be.  His  public  reply  had  been,  "Yea,  rather,  blessed  are 
they  that  hear  the  word  of  God  and  keep  it."''  We  catch  but 
one  more  glimpse  of  the  Virgin.  Seeing  her  as  she  stood  be- 
side the  cross,  our  Lord  said  to  St.  John,  "Behold  thy  mother, ' ' 
and  to  her,  "Woman,  behold  thy  son."'  After  this  her  name 
occurs  for  the  last  time  in  Scripture  in  the  passing  mention  of 
the  fact  that  she,  with  His  brethren — unbelievers  in  Him  no 
longer — was  present  in  the  gatherings  of  the  faithful  disciples 
for  purposes  of  prayer  and  supplication,  which  filled  up  the 
period  between  the  Ascension  and  the  Day  of  Pentecost.'  On 
which  of  these  notices  can  we  found  the  dogma  of  the  Aeipar- 
thenia  or  of  the  Immaculate  Conception? 

But,  it  will  be  said,  our  Blessed  Lord  consigned  her  to  the 
care  of  His  beloved  disciple,  and  not  to  the  care  of  His 
"brothers."  That  circumstance  needs  no  explanation.  St. 
John  was  the  Virgin's  nephew.  He  was  nearer  and  dearer  to 
Jesus,  in  accordance  with  His  own  express  declaration,  than 


1  !'"^f  '•  so-  '  John  ii.  4.  8  Matt.  xii.  46  ;  Mark  iil.  31  ;  Luke  viii.  19. 

*  Mark  XI.  21.  '  l.iikc  xl.  2S.  c  j^,;,,,  ^i^.  26.  '  Acts  i.  14. 


"THE   LORDS   BROTHER."  319 

any  of  His  brethren  were.  They  were  absent  from  the  cross;' 
St.  John  was  present.  They  had  been  absent  from  Him  all 
through  the  darker  and  more  troubled  phases  of  His  ministry; 
St.  John  had  accompanied  Him  through  them  all.  They  had 
not  been  at  the  Last  Supper;  St.  John  had  then  leaned  his 
head  upon  His  breast.  They  had  not  been  with  Him  at  (ieth- 
semane;  St.  John  had  been  one  of  the  chosen  three.  They 
had  addressed  Him  dubiously,  almost  reproachfully,  on  the 
occasion  of  His  going  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles ;"■'  St.  John 
had  been  His  chief  companion.  The  Lord,  as  He  Himself 
bore  testimony,  had  been  no  prophet  ''in  His  oicn  house,'"  any 
more  than  in  His  own  country.  His  brothers,  therefore,  were 
less  suited  than  St.  John  to  take  care  of  that  precious  charge. 
And,  further  than  this,  we  have  reason  to  infer  three  facts 
about  St.  John's  position  which  were  not  applicable  to  theirs, 
and  which,  besides  the  sweetness  and  nobleness  of  his  nature 
and  his  dearness  to  Jesus,  made  him  exceptionally  suited  to 
give  a  home  to  the  suffering  Mother.  One  was  that  he  had  a 
home  in  Jerusalem,  which  they  had  not;  another,  that  his  cir- 
cumstances were  more  prosperous  than  theirs,  which  would 
have  enabled  him  to  feel  no  burden  in  undertaking  the  sup- 
port of  Mary;  a  third,  that  he  alone  had  powerful  friends  at 
Jerusalem,  which  might  enable  him  to  render  her  position 
more  secure  than  it  could  have  been  in  the  lodgings  of  strug- 
gling Nazarenes.  On  any  hypothesis,  the  Virgin  was  removed 
to  another  home;  she  lived  no  longer  with  those  brothers  of 
the  Lord  with  whom  up  to  this  time  she  had  always  been  as- 
sociated. 

To  what  lengths  the  tendency  to  exalt,  beyond  all  warrant 
of  Scripture  or  reason,  the  dignity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  has 
led,  we  have  seen  even  in  our  own  age,  in  the  adoption  of  the 
dogma  that  she  was  born  sinless.  There  is  no  further  need 
to  dwell  upon  this  tendency.  But  the  notion  of  the  Aeipar- 
thenia  was  aided  by  the  growth  of  erroneous  views  respecting 
the  supposed  degradation,  or  comparative  unworthiness,  of 
marriage.  It  is  assumed  that  the  Virgin  would  have  been  dis- 
honoured by  subsequent  motherhood.  Where  is  there  any 
Scriptural  or  other  warrant  from  such  a  notion?     It  may  be 


J  It  cannot  be  said  that  this  is  an  ars^wncntum  ex  szlentto ;  for  (i)  as  this  is  the  tm!y 
place  in  the  Gospels  after  the  visit  to  the  Temple  in  which  the  Virgin  alone  is  menlioneil  with- 
out the  brethren,  this  is  a  clear  indication  that  they  were  not  with  her  ;  and  (2)  the  whole  ttiior 
of  the  narrative  leads  us  to  believe  that  but  few  of  our  Lord's  rcUitivcs  or  followers  stood  beside 
His  cross,  and  that  those  few  are  all  mentioned. 

2  John  vii.  i-io. 


320  THc:   EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

certainly  affirmed  that  such  -a  notion  was  unknown  alike  to  the 
Jews  and  to  the  early  Christians.* 

And  in  the  view  of  all  those  who  regard  holy  wedlock  as  no 
stain  and  no  disparagement,  but  as  a  sacred  and  blessed  in- 
stitution, the  Virgin-mother  is  in  no  way  lowered  from  that  high 
blessing  which  she  received  from  the  annunciation  of  the  angel 
by  receiving  the  after-blessing  of  sons  and  daughters,  a  blessing 
which  cometh  from  God  alone. ^  And  so  far  is  the  Divine  dig- 
nity of  the  Son  of  God  from  being  lowered  by  such  a  circum- 
stance— in  that  human  humiliation  which  was  to  Him  the  ap- 
pointed path  of  His  perfectionment^ — so  far  was  it  from  being 
derogatory  to  Him  to  live  in  the  same  house  with  "brothers" 
and  ' ' sisters, ' '  the  children  of  His  mother,  that,  on  the  contrary, 
there  is  something  inexpressibly  beautiful  and  consoling  in  the 
thought  that  He,  too — as  part  of  that  sympathy  with  us,-w^hich 
was  one  of  the  great  qualifications  for  a  High  Priesthood  which 
could  be  touched  with  a  feeling  of  our  infirmities — knew  to  the 
full  the  dignity,  the  happiness,  the  innocence,  the  holiness  of 
family  life.  Such  a  life — the  deep  and  helpful  love  of  brothers 
and  sisters  bound  together  in  a  common  bond  of  resistance 
against  the  perils,  of  consolation  amid  the  trials,  of  joy  in  the 
happiness,  of  the  world — is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and 
sacred  spectacles  which  earth  can  offer.  It  forms  yet  one 
more  link  of  union  betwen  us  and  our  Saviour,  if  He  shared 
with  us  this,  as  well  as  every  other  relationship  of  life  in  which 
it  was  possible  for  Him  to  share  at  all.  If  I  held  the  common 
sentiment  that  the  Virgin  would  have  been  dishonoured  by  the 
ordinary  family  relationship — if  I  shared  the  Apollinarian  ten- 
dency to  obliterate  as  much  as  possible  all  traces  of  those  things 
which  our  Lord  had  in  common  with  our  ordinary  human  life, 
— then  I  too  might  be  tempted  to  succumb  to  the  force  of 
those  sentiments  which  in  this  matter  have  led  so  many  to  in- 
terpret the  Gospels  in  a  non-natural  sense.  But  I  hold  it  to 
be  a  paramount  duty  to  interpret  Scripture  by  what  it  says, 
and  not  by  our  own  fancies  as  to  what  it  ought  to  say.  I  also 
hold  that  our  Lord  came  to  ennoble  and  glorify  our  human 
nature  in  all  its  normal  conditions,  and  that  all  His  teaching 
is  opposed  to  notions  of  ceremonial  as  apart  from  moral  sanc- 
tity, and  to  all  (jnostic,  or  Manichean,  or  Essene,  or  monastic 
fancies.     He  never  breathed  one  word  to  exalt  the  celibate 


•  I  Tim.  IV.  3  :  Col.  i«.  18-23  :  i  Cor.  vii.  5  (on  which  see  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  70).  And 
frjr  Jewish  f.pinion  sec  H.iv.-i  Hathr.^,  f.  116  a  :  Pesachim,  f.  113  b\  Nedarim,  f.  64  /^  ;  Kid- 
dushin,  \.  ■2^h  :  Yevamoih,  ff.  6-j,  63,  as  quoted  by  Hamburger,  etc. 

'  Kvcn  'Icrtullian,  in  spite  of  his  glorification  of  celibacy,  seems  to  have  held  the  same  view 
as  Helvidius.  a  Hcb.  ii.  10. 


**THE   lord's   brother."  321 

over  the  wedded  life,  and  to  attribute  to  that  age  the  glorifi- 
cation of  the  celibate  in  the  wedded  life  is  an  immense  ana- 
chronism. I  am  unable  to  accept  the  arguments  which  still 
lead  so  many  to  turn  the  word  "brothers"  into  "cousins,"  or 
to  borrow  apocryphal  fictions  to  help  out  a  theory  of  married 
relationship  known  to  the  traditions  of  media^valism,  unknown 
to  the  Scriptural  simplicity  of  Jewish  family  life. 

These,  then,  arp  the  considerations  which,  to  my  mind, 
give  the  main  force  to  what  is  called  the  Hel vidian  theory — 
the  theory  that  the  Lord's  "brothers  and  sisters"  really  were 
the  children  of  His  mother.'  It  is  really  no  theory  at  all,  but 
an  acceptance  bf  what  the  Gospels  seem  to  say.  1  regard  it 
as  possible — nay,  even  as  probable — that  the  sons  ofAlphajus, 
of  whom  two  or  more  were  Apostles,  were,  like  the  sons  of 
Zebedee,  the  first  cousins  of  Jesus;  but  I  do  not  believe  they 
were  ever  called  His  "brothers.'"^ 

2.  There  is,  however,  yet  another  theory,  which  is  more 
plausible  than- that  of  St.  Jerome,  and  which  maybe  accepted 
by  any  who  can  be  satisfied  with  such  evidence  as  is  adduced 
for  it.  It  is  the  theory  which  Bishop  Lightfoot  has  called  the 
Epiphanian,  because  it  seems  to  be  first  definitely  maintained  by 
Epiphanius,^  a.d.  367.  This  is  the  theory  that  "the  Lord's 
brethren"  were  the  children  of  Joseph  by  an  earlier  marriage. 
It  is  adopted  by  Theophylact  under  the  form  that  they  were 
his  children  by  a  Levirate  marriage  with  the  widow  of  his 
brother  Clopas.  Modern  writers,  again,  have  regarded  them 
as  adopted  nephews,  whose  father  was  dead.  These  varia- 
tions show  that  we  are  in  the  region  of  conjectural  tradition 
rather  than  of  traditional  evidence.  But  the  general  notion 
that  "the  brethren"  were  children  of  Joseph  and  not  of  Mary 
derives  such  support  as  it  may  from  the  Apocryphal  Gospels. 
They  show  what  was  a  popular  belief  in  the  second  and  third 
centuries.  That  they  show  nothing  more  will,  I  suppose,  be 
conceded  by  every  one;  and  the  measure  of  value  which  we 
are  to  attach  to  such  popular  belief  is  shown  by  the  monstrous 
and  even  abhorrent  fictions  in  which  these  Apocryphal  Gos- 
pels abound.  A  support  which  comes  from  a  source  so  radi- 
cally tainted  is  not  one  on  which  we  can  rely.     In  fact,  St. 


1  It  is  accepted  by  Neandcr,  Blom,  Meyer,  Stier,  Alford,  Schaff,  etc. 

2  'I'lic  well-known  story  of  the  Desposyni  [supra,  p.  142)  obviously  accords  far  better  with 
the  view  that  our  Lord's  brcthern  were,  m  the  Helvidian  sense,  His  brothers  than  with  any 
other.  1     r)     •        u 

3  Kishop  T.ightfoot  has  rendered  a  great  service  in  conecting  the  error  that  the  Papias  who 
is  quoted  (Mill,  Mythical  Interpretation,  p.  291)  in  support  of  the  Hieronymian  theory,  is 
Papias  of  Hierapolis.     He  is  a  Papias  not  of  the  second,  but  of  the  eleventh  century. 

21 


7,22  TIIK    I<:ARLY   days    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Jerome  contemptuously  dismisses  this  theory  under  the  name 
of  dcliramenta  apocryphoriim — ''apocryphal  ravings.''  These 
fictions  originated  the  notion  that  Joseph  was  an  old  man,  and 
that  he  had  sons  who  were  grown  up  when  Jesus  was  born. 
One  of  the  oldest  of  these  Apocryphal  Gospels  is  the  Prote- 
vangelium  of  James/  which,  however,  either  blunders  in  say- 
ing that  Joseph  had  no  daughter,''  or  does  not  hold  to  the  Per- 
petual Virginity.  The  Gospel  of  pseudo-Matthew  calls  James 
"the  first-born  son  of  Joseph,"'  which  does  not  in  any  way 
decide  the  question;  and  the  story  which,  in  common  with  the 
Ciospel  of  Thomas,  it  tells  about  James  being  bitten  by  a  viper, 
and  healed  by  Jesus,  seems  to  be  a  confused  echo  of  a  story 
which,  m  distorted  forms,  was  current  in  the  Rabbinic  schools.* 
Such  is  the  evidence  for  this  Epiphanian  theory.  Its  first 
respectable  support  comes  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
and  its  earlier  traces  are  only  found  embedded  in  worthless 
and  pernicious  forgeries.  If  there  are  any  who  consider  such 
evidence  sufficiently  strong  to  overthrow  the  apparently 
straightforward  indications  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  other  diffi- 
culties on  which  I  have  here  touched,  I  have  no  desire  to  com- 
bat their  opinion.  What  I  must  myself  regard  as  proven  is, 
that  James,  the  author  of  the  Epistle,  was  not  the  son  of  Al- 
phccus,  and  therefore  was  not  one  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. 
Whether  we  embrace  the  view  of  Epiphanius,  or  that  of  Hel- 
vidius,  is  not  a  religious  question.  It  is  a  question  of  litera- 
ture and  of  criticism.  It  is  the  question  whether  we  are  to 
interpret  the  Gospels  by  their  apparent  meaning,  or  to  correct 
them  by  imagined  fitnesses,  and  by  the  confused  combinations 
of  apocryphal  forgers.  It  is  the  question  above  all  of  the  view 
which  we  take  of  the  married  life — whether,  with  some  of  the 
Essenes  and  many  of  the  Gnostics,  we  regard  it  as  involving 
something  essentially  impure;  and  therefore  derogatory  to  the 
honour  of  the  Virgin  as  the  Mother  of  our  Lord; — or  whether 
we  regard  it  as  a  holy  mystery,  which  is  so  far  from  having  in 
it  any  touch  of  earthly  defilement,  that  it  is  deliberately,  and 
again  and  again  adopted  as  a  type  of  the  union  betwen  God 


'  Sec,  too,  the  Gospel  of  Joseph,  and  the  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy.  2  Mark  vi.  3. 

Mow  purely  arbitniry  were  the  inventions  about  the  relationships  of  the  Holy  Family  ap- 

^^Li  ■  1'"— ""  S*=»«^l«-^'c»l  details  furnished  in  this  apocrvphal  writing,  which  may  be  thus 

Joachim  =  Anna  =  Cleophas  (by  a  second  marriage). 

=  Joseph  =  'ITie  Virgin  Mary.   Mary  =  AIpha;us. 
_J I 

4  *      .  J"^"'  Joseph,  Judas.  Sunon.  Philip  and  James  the  Little. 

*  Avodah-Zarah,  f.  a;  /^ 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  323 

and  holy  souls,  between  Christ  and  His  spotless  Church. 
Whichever  view  we  adopt,  we  shall  indeed  be  justified  in 
stating  the  arguments  which  have  led  us  to  our  conclusion; 
but  to  advance  them  with  courtesy,  and  to  hold  them  in  per- 
fect charity,  will  be  a  Christian  duty,  from  which  no  amount  of 
zeal  and  no  intensity  of  conviction  can  for  a  moment  hold  us 
excused. 


CHAPTER   XX. 

LIFE    AND    CHARACTER    OF    ST.    JAMES,   THE    LORD's    BROTHER. 
"Thy  Nazarites  were  purer  than  snow."— Lam.  iv.  7. 

It  is  one  of  the  signs  of  the  inimitable  truthfulness  and 
power  of  Scripture,  that  again  and  again,  by  a  few  simple 
touches,  it  enables  us  to  realise  the  character  of  those  of  whom 
it  speaks.  There  are  many  whose  lives,  as  recorded  in  Holy 
Writ,  would  only  occupy  two  or  three  verses,  whom,  never- 
theless, from  the  inspired  power  with  which  they  are  delineated, 
we  are  enabled  to  represent  to  ourselves  in  their  distinctest  per- 
sonality. Still  more  is  this  the  case  when  we  also  possess  some 
of  their  utterances  and  writings  And  such  a  picture  we  can 
paint  of  St.  James,  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  one  of  the 
"brothers  of  the  Lord." 

Even  of  his  childhood  and  training  we  can  form  some  con- 
ception. Whether  he  were  a  half-brother  or  only  a  step-brother- 
of  Jesus,  tradition  and  Scripture  alike  tend  to  show  that  he  was 
brought  up  with  brothers  and  sisters  in  the  lowly  home  at  Naz- 
areth. Joseph  was  but  a  village  carpenter,  and,  as  tradition 
says,  by  no  means  a  skilful  one.  A  carpenter  at  an  outlying 
Galilean  village  must  of  necessity  have  been  poor.  But  there 
is  an  immense  chasm  between  poverty  and  pauperism.  The 
circumstances  of  Eastern  life  take  away  all  the  sting  from  the 
condition  of  the  industrious  poor.  The  wants  of  life  are  there 
reduced  to  their  simplest  elements.  There  is  no  wasteful  lux- 
ury, no  extravagant  display.  A  little  bread,  a  few  dates,  a 
spring  of  water,  a  humble  cottage,  a  single  change  of  raiment, 
are  enough  to  support  the  honest  labourer  in  dignity  and 
contentment;  and  these  he  can  earn  with  ease  and  cer- 
tainty. Where  there  is  no  envy  in  the  heart,  where  restless- 
ness and  ambition  are  under  due  control,  such  a  state  of  life 
is  not  only  tolerable — it  is  endowed  with  special  elements  of 
happiness.  There  must,  we  may  be  sure,  have  been  many 
who  sat  around  our  Lord  as  they  listened  to  the  Sermon  on  the 


324  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Mount  who  could  understand  from  happy  personal  experience 
the  beatitudes  pronounced  upon  the  poor  who  were  also  poor 
in  spirit. 

It  will  be  needless  to  touch  once  more  on  that  course  of  a 
Tewish  boy's  education  which  I  have  already  described  in  the 
Lives  of  Christ  and  of  St.  Paul.  We  know  how  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament  formed  the  very  staple  of  a  boy's  train- 
ing in  every  genuine  Israelitish  family, — how  the  children  began 
to  learn  them  at  five  and  continued  the  study  until  manhood, 
only  adding  to  them  the  teachings  of  the  Scribes.^  Those 
teachings,  under  the  two  forms  of  Halachoth  and  Hagadoth 
— the  one  mainly  consisting  of  ceremonial  rules,  the  other  of 
imaginative  legends — were  first  collected  in  the  second  cen- 
tury by  Rabbi  Judah  the  Holy  (Hakkodesh),  into  the  Mish- 
nah.^  In  the  course  of  centuries  they  grew,  by  the  constant 
accretions  of  the  Gemara,  until  they  now  fill  the  twelve  foHo 
volumes  of  the  Jewish  Talmud.  We  cannot,  of  course,  tell 
with  any  certainty  how  much  of  the  teaching  existed  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era;  but  the  essence  of  Jewish 
teaching  at  that  day  consisted  in  the  repetition  of  precedents 
and  opinions,  and  a  large  body  of  these  precedents  and  opin- 
ions are  attributed  to  Hillel  and  Shammai,  and  other  great 
Rabbis  partly  contemporary  with,  partly  anterior  to,  the  days 
of  Christ.  Again,  how  much  of  this  teaching  was  likely  to 
penetrate  into  the  families  and  schools,  if  schools  there  were, 
•of  the  despised  Galilean  village  is  a  matter  of  still  greater  un- 
certainty. But  the  discourses  of  Christ  show  that  He  was 
familiar  with  the  conceptions  which  lay  at  the  heart  of  the 
Rabbinic  system;'  and  when  He  came  to  an  open  rupture  with 
the  Pharisees  of  Jerusalem,  He  showed  His  intensest  dis- 
approval of  the  spirit  which  identified  their  ritualistic  observ- 
ances and  stereotyped  formulae  with  true  religion.  The  lan- 
guage of  St.  James  shows  that,  in  later  days,  at  any  rate,  he 
had  accepted  the  truths  which  the  Lord  had  taught.  Until 
the  time  of  his  conversion  he  may  have  held  the  Pharisaic 
traditions  in  higher  estimation.  The  essence  of  Pharisaism 
consisted  in  the  extravagant  exaltation  of  the  Law,  in  its  cere- 
monial no  less  than  in  its  moral  elements,  and  in  the  endless 
developments  of  pedantic  scrupulosity  into  which  its  regula- 
tions had  been  expanded.     The  object  of  these  developments 


Judah  I,ciiTcm:ih  in  Pirk-^  Avoth,  v.  21  :  "At  five  the  15ible,  at  ten  the  Mishnah,  at 
thirteen  the  commandments,  at  fifteen  the  Talmud,  at  eighteen  marriage,  at  twenty  trade,  at 
thirty  full  vi;{our,  at  fortv  maturity,  at  fifty  counsel,"  etc. 

2  kahbi  Judah  the  Holy  w.is  horn  about  a.d.  130  and  died  A.D.  100. 

Matt,  xxiii.  16-22,  25  ;  Mark  vii.  5-13  ;  etc. 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  325 

was  to  enclose  the  Law  in  a  hed^e  of  separatism,'  out  of  which 
no  Jew  could  break  without  threats  of  excommunication,  and 
into  which  no  Gentile  could  force  his  way  with  any  promise 
of  advantage,  unless  he  accepted  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
abandoned  his  Gentile  antecedents,  and  became  a  Proselyte 
of  Righteousness.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  earlier  opin- 
ions of  St.  James,  he  ultimately  learned  to  regard  even  the 
Levitic  Law  as  a  yoke  too  heavy  for  Gentiles  to  bear;'  and  he 
lived  to  teach  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  that  the  only  ritual 
which  was  pure  and  undefiled  before  God  was  the  ritual  of 
Christian  tenderness,  the  activity  of  Christian  love.' 

But  whether  he  had  been  trained  or  not  in  the  traditional 
expansions  of  Judaic  scholasticism,  we  know  that  he  was  a 
rigid  adherent  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  a  faithful  maintainer 
of  the  Levitical  worship.  His  father  Joseph'  is  characterised 
by  St.  Matthew  as  "a.  just  man."  This  word  conveys  to  Jew- 
ish ears  a  more  definite  meaning  than  it  does  to  ours.  It 
means  not  only  that  he  was  fair  and  honourable  and  upright, 
as  we  see  that  his  conduct  was  in  every  incident  of  Christ's 
nativity  and  infancy  in  which  he  bore  a  part,  but  also  that  he 
made  it  his  special  study  to  meet  all  the  requirements  of  the 
Mosaic  Law.  A  "just  man"  was  one  who  gave  tithes;  who 
went  to  the  yearly  feasts;  who  kept  the  one  yearly  fast;  who 
was  scrupulous  in  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath;  who  attended 
the  Synagogue;  who  used  the  prescribed  prayers;  who  ob- 
served the  rules  of  Levitic  purification;  who  reverenced  the 
great  Rabbis;  who  wore  fringes  and  phylacteries;  who  made 
a  constant  study  of  the  commandments,  the  precepts,  the  judg- 
ments, the  testimonies,  the  Law,  the  word,  the  will  of  the  God 
of  the  Covenant  of  his  fathers.^  To  be  a 'just  man,  according 
to  the  Jewish  ideal,  was  to  be  "a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews," 
to  walk  in  all  the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord 
blameless.®  And  this  was  the  aim  of  the  Holy  Family.  Not 
only  did  Joseph  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the  Feast  of  the  Pass- 
over, but  Mary  accompanied  him,  though,  in  consequence  of 
the  fatigue  and  the  perils  of  the  journey,  it  was  deemed  un- 
necessary, and  what  the  Schoolmen  would  have  called  "a 
work  of  supererogation,"  for  women  to  accompany  their  hus- 
bands."   It  is  certain,  then,  that  St.  James  was  educated  in  an 


1  From  this  ^'orA—perishuth — the  nime  Pharisee  is  derived. 

2  Acts  xv.  10,  seqq.     He  listened  without  protest  to  the  startling  language  of  St.  Peter,  who 
also  said  that  it  was  too  heavy  for  "our  fathers."  ^  Jas.  i.  26.  a/. 

*  Joseph  was  his  father  on  the  ''  Kpiphanian  "  hypothesis  as  much  as  on  the  Heividian. 
^  Ps.  cxix.  ;  Matt.  i.  19  ;  Luke  xviii.  12.  "  Luke  i.  6. 

^  Such  had  been  the  decision  of  Hillel. 


326  TIIK   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

atmosphere  of  rigid  Judaism,  perhaps  not  untinged  with  that 
fervid  patriotism  and  unbounded  appreciation  of  the  privileges 
of  the  Jewish  people  which  was  characteristic  of  the  Galile- 
ans,' and  which,  unless  duly  controlled,  might  easily  degen- 
erate into  fierce  fanaticism  and  haughty  exclusiveness. 

But  in  St.  James  these  tendencies  assumed  the  nobler  form 
of  a  morality  which  was  not  only  energetic,  but  even  stern  in 
its  holy  severity.  He  had  grown  up  amid  men  and  women  of 
beautiful  and  simple  natures — among  those  whose  souls  wore, 
"when  they  looked  without,  the  glow  of  sympathy;  when  they 
looked  within,  the  bloom  of  modesty."  Of  his  other  brothers 
we  know  nothing,  but  we  trace  the  same  characteristic  features 
in  the  mind  of  his  brother  St.  Jude.  May  we  not  suppose 
that  "the  steady  love  of  good  and  the  steady  scorn  of  evil" 
may  have  been  intensified  in  their  minds  to  a  rare  degree  by 
their  intercourse  with  One  Who  was  holy,  harmless,  undefiled, 
and  separate  from  sinners?  Perhaps  we  may  trace  one  result 
of  that  intercourse  in  the  intense  belief  shown  by  St.  James  in 
the  efficacy  of  prayer.  The  duty  and  blessedness  of  prayer 
occupies  no  small  part  in  the  teaching  of  his  Epistle;"'  and  he 
speaks  of  it  as  one  who  had  learnt  the  lesson  from  the  Lord 
Jesus.'  In  this,  and  in  all  respects,  must  not  the  presence  of 
the  Son  of  God  in  that  humble  household  of  Nazareth  have 
exercised  a  spell  which  could  not  but  create  in  the  hearts  of 
good  men  a  horror  of  vice  even  deeper  than  that  which  such 
natures  would  spontaneously  derive  from  the  training  of  right- 
eous parents,  and  from  their  exclusive  study  of  Holy  Books? 

In  the  writings  both  of  St.  James  and  St.  Jude  we  find  an 
intimate  familiarity  with  the  books  of  Scripture.  The  Bible 
had  been  their  main  library.  In  St.  James  we  can  even  trace 
the  portions  of  Scripture  which  had  the  deepest  charm  for  him, 
and  the  impression  which  they  had  left  upon  his  mind.  He 
alludes  to  Abraham,  to  Rahab,  to  Elijah;  he  refers  to  the 
Pentateuch,  to  the  Psalms,  to  Isaiah,  and  to  the  Prophet  Amos. 
On  a  passage  of  the  latter  Prophet  he  founded  the  main  argu- 
ment of  the  speech  which  had  so  vast  an  influence  on  the 
si)read  of  Christianity,  and  he  echoes  his  views  in  two  passages 
of  the  Epistle."  But  the  Old  Testament  writers  whose  spirit 
he  had  most  fully  imbibed  are  those  whose  teachings  bear  on 
that  practical  wisdom  which  the  Jews  called  Chokmah.     They 


>  Jos.  /}«//.  xviii.  1,  §  6  :    Vit.  19,  and  passim,  B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  2. 
«  Sec  1.  5  :  IV.  2,  3,  8  ;  v.  13-18. 

Compare  the  above  passages  with  Matt.  v.  44  :  xvii.  21,  etc. 
*  Amos  IX.  13  (Acts  xv.  17),  ii.  7,  v.  la  (Ja.  v.  4). 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER    OF   ST.    JAMES.  327 

held,  and  held  truly,  that  they  were  in  possession  of  a  moral 
"wisdom"  which  was  the  peculiar  heritage  of  their  race.  It 
was  not  a  "philosophy;"  it  was  too  little  systematic,  too  much 
founded  on  practical  experience  and  intuitions  which  trans- 
cended proof,  to  correspond  to  the  ordinary  meaning  of  that 
term.  But  the  Hebraising  Jews  valued  it  so  exclusively  that 
they  looked  with  unwise  suspicion,  and  even  with  ignorant  con- 
tempt, upon  Greek  and  Roman  lore. 

Now  the  Jewish  "wisdom"  bore  far  more  on  conduct  than 
on  speculation.  With  this  kind  of  wisdom  the  Epistle  of  vSt. 
James  is  largely  occupied.'  There  is  no  book  of  the  Hagio- 
grapha  to  which  ^Je  more  frequently  refers  than  the  Book  of 
Proverbs.^  He  has  evidently  caught  his  tone  from  the  Prophets 
of  his  nation;  but  the  lessons  which  he  deemed  to  be  of  the 
highest  importance  are  those  lessons  of  "wisdom  for  a  man's 
self"  vvdiich  recorded  the  long  results  of  experience  in  the  terse 
apophthegms  of  Solomon  and  of  the  school  which  he  had 
founded. 

But  St.  James  had  not  studied  the  Scriptures  only.  It  is 
not  certain  that  our  Lord  ever  alludes  to  the  Apocrypha, 
though  there  are  one  or  two  passages  in  which  it  is  possible 
that  He  does  so.  But  both  St.  James  and  his  brother  St.  Jude 
show  a  marked  familiarity  with  apocryphal  writings.  St.  Jude, 
as  we  have  seen,  makes  a  direct  quotation  from  the  apocry- 
phal Book  of  Enoch,  and  alludes  to  other  circumstances 
which  he  could  only  have  derived  from  apocryphal  tradition. 
In  other  words,  St.  Jude  was  in  great  measure  what  the  Rab- 
bis would  have  called  a  Hagadist,  or  one  who  dwelt  on  alle- 
gory, legend,  and  historical  story  more  than  on  the  legal 
precedents  of  the  Halacha.  There  are  no  such  legendary  al- 
lusions in  St.  James;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  shows  a  sur- 
prising fondness  for  the  two  best  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
Apocrypha — the  books  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom.  To 
these  books  he  makes  no  less  than  thirteen  references  in  the 
short  compass  of  five  chapters.  These  allusions,  strange  to 
say,  are  more  numerous  and  definite  than  those  which  he 
makes  to  any  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  reader 
will  have  an  opportunity  of  estimating  this  fact  by  a  reference 
to  the  parallels  which  I  have  mentioned  farther  on.  It  has 
been  reckoned  that  he  alludes  more  or  less  directly  to  the 
Book  of  Job  six  times,  to  the  Book  of  Proverbs  at  least  ten 
times,  to  the  Book  of  the  "Wisdom  of  Solomon"  at  least  five 


[3-17,  3  See  infra,  p.  367. 


328  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

times,'  but  to  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus — "the  Wisdom  of 
Jesus' the  son  of  Sirach"— more  than  fifteen  times.'  It  re- 
quires but  a  glance  at  his  Epistle  to  see  that  what  has  influ- 
enced him  most  of  all  is  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  to  which 
he  has  some  fourteen  allusions;  but  he  has  used  its  teaching 
to  breathe  new  life  into  the  beautiful  though  apocryphal  trea- 
tise of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  on  which  it  is  evident  that  he  had 
deeply  meditated.  The  fact  is  the  more  striking  because  in 
other'respects  St.  James  shows  no  sympathy  with  Alexandrian 
speculations.  There  is  not  in  him  the  faintest  tinge  of  Phi- 
Ionian  philosophy;  on  the  contrary,  he  belongs  in  a  marked  de- 
gree to  the  School  of  Jerusalem.  He  is  a  thorough  Hebraiser, 
a  typical  Judaist.  All  his  thoughts  and  phrases  move  nor- 
mally in  the  Palestinian  sphere.  This  is  a  curious  and  almost 
unnoticed  phenomenon.  The  "Sapiential  literature"  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  the  least  specifically  Israelite.  It  was 
the  direct  precursor  of  Alexandrian  morals.  It  deals  with 
mankind,  and  not  with  the  Jew.  Yet  St.  James,  who  shows 
so  much  partiality  for  this  literature,  is  of  all  the  writers  of 
ftie  New  Testament  the  least  Alexandrian,  and  the  most  Ju- 
daic. 

But  there  is  another  fact  about  St.  James  which  goes  far 
to  account  for  his  position,  his  character,  and  the  tone  which 
he  adopts,  and  which  also  throws  an  interesting  light  on  the 
views  of  Joseph  and  of  the  Holy  Family.  It  is  that  he  was — 
if  we  may  accept  the  testimony  of  Hegesippus,  which  is  in  this 
instance  intrinsically  probable — a  Nazarite  from  the  womb.' 
Joseph  was  called  "a  just  man"  in  the  sense  which  I  have 
already  expained;  it  was  probably  to  the  vow  of  the  Nazarite 
that  St.  James  owed  his  title  of  "the  Just."  The  close  of  the 
Jewish  age  was  an  age  of  vows.  The  gathering  of  the  eagles 
which  were  beginning  to  flap  their  fierce  wings  over  the  Holy 
Land  awakened  anguish  and  terror  in  the  hearts  of  the  Jews." 
In  the  spirits  of  many  of  them,  and  not  least  in  those  of  brave 


If  any  further  evidence  should  ever  throw  probability  on  the  ingenious  theory  of  Dean 
1  lumptrc  that  the  lirjok  of  Wisdom  was  written  by  Apollos  before  his  conversion  to  Chris- 
twmty.  It  would  be  an  interesting  circumstance  that  there  should  have  been  these  intellectual 
GcnScL  *""'  ''*'^'^  of  Jewish  Christianity  and  the  great  disciple  of  the  Apostle  of  the 
'  ITie  Talmud  places  among  those  "  who  have  no  portion  in  the  world  to  come  "  (the  olam 
haUa)  ••  those  who  read  the  books  of  outsiders"  (D^ilS-'hfl  t-JBDi  :  and  Rav  Yoseph  said 
AellL'r  k'"*'!'"!'""'^/'^  A"-'V,,/  //„.  Jiook  o/thr  so,:  of  Sirach  "  (Sanhedrin,  f.  loo,  h).     On 

n«  .,r  ..^  Nkct.h  .jfSt.  James  l,y  Hegesippus  is  preserved  in  Kuseb.  //.  K.  ii.  23.  .Grat2  has 
no  groun.l  for  his  assertion  [i.fsch.  d.  Ju.i,;t.  iii.  250)  that  St.  James  was  in  these  particulars 
?8lTV^K  711  •  ^""l*'  '  >"*  '  '^^""°'  ^g'-'-'^  ^^"h  Mr.  Scirley  [Jenvish  Christians,  p. 
A«!  .^H  K.*  fl  "  ""^•^"^y  of  credit,  for  it  is  confirmed  by  many  incidental  allusions  in  the 
Act*  and  Kp,«lc«.  .  Sec  2  Ksdras  xi.  45. 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER    OF   ST.    JAMES.  329 

and  hardy  Galilasans,  the  sense  of  peril  kindled  a  flame  of  pa- 
triotism which  showed  itself  in  wild  revolt.'  In  those  who 
were  unprepared  for  these  movements — who  did  not  hear  the 
call  from  Heaven,  which  in  the  form  of  prophetic  sanction  or 
manifest  opportunity  would  alone  have  justified  an  appeal  to 
the  sword — the  sorrow  of  political  extinction  found  its  sure 
consolation  in  the  Law  of  God.  The  beauty  and  purity  of 
that  Law  had  kindled  the  rapturous  delight  of  the  exile  who 
wrote  the  119th  Psalm.  Li  that  golden  alphabet  of  Hebrew 
faithfulness  he  found  a  compensation  for  every  earthly  trial. 
It  was  the  desire  to  preserve  that  Law  intact  which,  amid 
manifold  aberrations,  formed  the  nobler  side  of  Pharisaism.  In 
faithfulness  to  that  Law — which  he  at  last  learnt  to  regard 
from  the  Christian  standpoint  as  "a  Law  of  Liberty" — St. 
James  found  the  highest  meaning  of  his  life.  To  obey  it  in 
the  most  open  manner  became  the  vow  of  his  life.  A  people 
suffering  under  oppression  learns  to  value  the  force  which  is 
derivable  from  sacred  vows.-  In  vows  the  age  of  the  Judges 
had  found  a  spring  of  enthusiasm  which  helped  them  to  win 
deliverance.  The  instances  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  and  St. 
James — not  to  mention  the  Essenes  or  Banus  the  Pharisee^ — 
show  us  that  in  the  days  of  Roman  oppression  the  Jews  were 
once  more  learning  the  same  lesson.^ 

As  a  Nazarite  St.  James  would  be  regarded  as  holy  even 
from  infancy.  The  vow  was  one  which  devoted  him  to  the 
cause  of  God.  He  never  tasted  wine  or  strong  drink.  He 
never  ate  any  animal  food.  No  razor  had  ever  come  upon  the 
long  locks  which  streamed  over  his  shoulders.  He  never 
anointed  himself  with  oil.''  Although  he  must  have  constantly 
practised  the  ablutions  which  were  an  essential  part  of  Levitic 
rule,  he  never  allowed  himself  the  effeminate  luxury  of  the 
bath,  which  had  been  borrowed  from  the  soft  customs  of  Ionia. ^^ 
The  scrupulous  cleanliness  of  Levitism,  which  arose  from  its 
abhorrence  of  defilement  from  any  creeping  thing,  led  him 


1  The  name  "  Galilean,"  though  not,  as  has  been  erroneously  said,  almost  identical  with 
"  Zealot,"  yet  in  common  use  denoted  a  certain  amount  of  disaffection  to  the  Roman  Govern- 
ment (Matt.  xxvi.  69  ;  Mark  xiv.  70  ;  and  Jos.  B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  j,  etc.). 

2  Jos.  I'it.  2.  3  See  Ewald,  Gesch.   Volks  Israel,  ii.  517. 

■»  See  Hegesippus,  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  23.  This  may  be  regarded  as  inecoucilable  with 
the  directions  given  in  James  v.  14  ;  but  the  use  of  oil  tnedicinaily  is  very  different  from  its 
use  as  a  luxury. 

°  BoAaveio)  ovk  exp^fxaTo.  Some  have  been  rather  horrified  by  the  e.xpression  of  Hegesip- 
pus that  St.  James  "  never  used  the  bath."  Hut  it  must  not  for  a  moment  be  supposed  that 
St.  James  approved  of  that  revolting  notion  of  "the  holiness  of  dirt"  which  seems  to  have 
found  a  place  in  the  minds  of  some  of  the  hermits.  The  expression  '*  the  bath"  seems  to  me 
to  have  a  technical  meaning,  so  that  it  might  be  said  even  of  an  Essene,  in  spite  of  his  daily 
ablutions  in  cold  water  (Jos.  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  5),  that  "he  did  not  use  the  bath."  .Sec  Schwegler, 
Nachapflst.  Zeitalt.  i.  141. 


330  THK   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

always  to  wear  robes  of  pure  white  linen,  because  woollen  sub- 
stances  could  not  be  kept  so  absolutely  clean.  This  would  in- 
dicate a  scrupulosity  even  greater  than  that  of  the  Priests,  for 
they  ordinarily  wore  woollen  garments,'  although  they  might 
only  be  clad  in  linen  while  performing  their  sacred  functions. 
'Jhe  Xazaritism  of  St.  James  is  a  circumstance  of  great  mo- 
ment in  the  explanation  of  his  life  and  character.  It  added 
strength  to  his  personal  influence.  There  are  traces  in  Scrip- 
lure  that  the  Nazarites  were  regarded  with  peculiar  pride. 
They  were  looked  upon  as  endowed  with  health  and  beauty, 
as  well  as  holiness.  "Thy  Nazarites,"  says  Jeremiah,^  "were 
purer  than  snow,  they  were  whiter  than  milk,  they  wxre  more 
ruddy  in  body  than  rubies,  their  polishing  was  of  sapphire." 
They  may  even  have  been  admitted  into  some  of  the  functions 
which  were  otherwise  confined  to  the  Tribe  of  Levi.  It  can- 
not indeed  be  true  that '  'because  he  was  a  Nazarite"  St.  James 
was  allowed,  like  the  High  Priest,  to  enter  the  Holiest  once  a 
year.  In  making  that  statement  Epiphanius'  probably  mis- 
takes the  remark  of  Hegesippus'  that  he  was  admitted  into  the 
Sanctuary  (ti?  to.  ayta).  And  this  may  be  true.  For  if  we 
read  o(  Rechabites  who  were  "scribes"  and  "singers,"  and 
were  allowed  "to  stand  before  the  Lord"  in  the  service  of  the 
Sanctuary,  though  they  were  of  Kenite  blood, ^  the  same  was 
more  likely  to  be  true  of  Nazarites,  especially,  if  like  St. 
James,  they  were  of  priestly  kin  and  of  David ic  descent.  At 
any  rate,  the  Nazarites  were  pledged  champions  of  Mosaic 
institutions,"  and  signs  are  not  wanting  that  the  vow  of  the 
Nazarite  had  been  adopted  by  other  members  of  the  pircle  who 
were  connected  with  the  earthly  home  of  Jesus.'' 

In  the  case  of  St.  James,  as  in  that  of  his  kinsman  John 
the  Baptist,  this  life-long  vow  helps  to  account  for  the  tone  of 
prophetic  authority  and  fiery  vehemence  in  which  he  speaks. 
May  it  not  al.so  account  for  "the  little  rift  within  the  lute" — 
the  gradual  .severance,  if  not  alienation,  from  Christ  of  His 
earthly  "brethren"  which  is  traceable  in  the  Gospels?  It  is 
probable  that  there  was  no  disturbance  of  harmony  so  long  as 
Jesus  continued  to  live  in  the  home  of  His  childhood,  and  to 


'  I^ev.  jtvi.  4  :  Eara  idiv.  17.  u  j  am.  iv.  7. 

J  I""*'"    ■" '-■•'   4  ;  Ixxvni.  13.  <  Hegesippus,  rt/.  Euseb.  //.  £.  ii.  23. 

.     '  ■*  Kings  X.  15,  23  :  Jer.  XXXV.  ;   i  Chroii.  ii.  55  ;  Ps.  Ixxi.,  i/tscr.  ; 

*"","  I  I'U'i  I"  the  Rcchabitc  priest,  n/>.  Kuscb.  //.  K.  ii.  23. 

•••   1 i'-rt,  the  title  borne  by  St.  James  of  Obiiavi,  or  "bulwark  of  the 

1  iri  «;//;.   which  Heijcsippjis  confusedly  .says  is  "defence  of  the  people,  and 

I  .        -c  are  told  of  St.  Matthew— who,  being  a  son  of  Alphaeus,  was  perhaps  a  cousin  of 
bl.  J*UMr»— Uiat  he  «n!y  ate  vcKciabks.      (Clcni.  Alex.  Paed.  ii.  i.) 


LIFE    AND    CHARACTER    OE    Sr.    JAMES.  33 1 

work  with  the  other  members  of  His  family  as  "the  Carpenter 
of  Nazareth."  On  the  Divine  instructiveness  of  that  long 
epoch  of  seclusion — on  the  eloquence  with  which  that  silence 
teaches  us  some  of  the  best  and  most  necessary  lessons  of  life 
— I  have  dwelt  elsewhere.'  We  may  well  believe  that  those 
early  years  at  Nazareth  were  exceptionally  peaceful  and  blessed. 
But  when  the  Lord's  hour  was  come  there  fell  a  shadow  be- 
tween Him  and  those  with  whom  He  had  been  brought  up. 
He  went  to  be  baptised  of  John  in  Jordan.  He  returned  with 
a  body  of  youthful  disciples,  of  whom  one  was  His  first  cousin, 
and  who  were  subsequently  joined  by  other  relatives.  But 
His  brethren  did  not  join  that  cluster  of  young  men  in  all 
their  glowing  enthusiasm  whom  Jesus  gathered  round  Him  as 
the  fresh  garland  of  His  ministry.  He  left  His  home:  they 
stayed  in  it.  They  must  have  heard  many  a  rumour  of  Him 
before  He  re-appeared  in  His  native  village.  Of  the  secret 
of  His  birth,  shrouded  in  awful  reticence  by  the  awe-struck 
humility  of  their  mother,  it  may  be  that  they  had  not  heard. 
They  had  seen  Him  grow  up  as  one  of  themselves,  living  in 
obscure  poverty,  toiling  at  a  humble  trade.  Could  they  ap- 
prove of  the  astonishing  boldness  with  which — usurping,  as  it 
might  seem  to  them,  the  functions  of  the  greatest  Priests,  or 
the  most  learned  Rabbis,  and  even  endangering  the  position 
of  His  countrymen  with  Herod,  and  with  the  Romans — He 
had  swept  the  courts  of  the  Temple  clear  from  the  crowd  of 
chaffering  traffickers?  If  such  conduct  showed  a  noble  zeal, 
how  could  they  approve  of  such  a  violation  of  all  custom — 
such  a  disregard  of  all  patriotic  prejudices — as  was  indicated 
by  His  stay  among  the  detested  Samaritans?  And  how  intense 
must  have  been  their  astonished  disapproval  when,  in  the 
Synagogue  of  Nazareth,  they  heard  Him — Him  with  Whom 
they  had  all  grown  up  side  by  side — proclaim  Himself  to  be 
the  promised  Messiah  of  the  Great  Prophecy  of  Isaiah!  His 
expulsion  from  Nazareth — the  narrow  escape  from  the  death 
for  "blasphemy"  which  His  infuriated  townsmen  wished  to 
inflict  upon  Him — the  consequent  disturbance  of  all  their 
hitherto  peaceful  relations  with  their  neighbours'" — the  neces- 
sity, arising  from  this  disturbance,  which  compelled  the  whole 
family  to  migrate  from  a  town  endeared  to  them  by  so  long  a 
residence,  and  by  so  many  associations — these  and  other  cir- 
cumstances must  all  have  come  upon  them  as  heavy  trials — 


•  See  my  Life  0/  Christy  i.  80-104. 

'  "  Is  not  this  the  son  of  Mary,  and  the  brother  of  James,  and  Joses,  and  Judas,  and 
Simon?  and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with  us?" — Mark  vi.  3. 


332  THK    KAkLV    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

trials  which  had  arisen  from  the  claims  and  the  conduct  of 
Him  Whom  men  called  their  brother.  All  these  circumstances 
would  tend  to  produce  the  want  of  perfect  cordiality  to  which 
our  Lord  alluded  when  He  said  that  "a  Prophet  is  not  with- 
out honour  except  in  his  own  ountry,  and  among  his  kins7nen 
and  in  his  own  house. "  ' 

At  first,  however,  they  did  not  venture  to  interfere.  With 
their  strong  Levitic  prejudices,  they  must  have  heard  with 
disapproval  of  His  disparagement  of  the  "traditions  of  the 
fathers;"  of  His  indifference  to  the  Oral  Law;  of  His  neglect 
of  Levitic  rules  when  He  touched  a  corpse  or  a  leper;  of  His 
graciousness  to  the  poor  woman,  whose  slightest  contact  in- 
volved ceremonial  pollution;  of  His  eating  with  unwashen 
hands;  of  His  annulment  of  the  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  meats;  of  His  not  observing  the  two  weekly  fasts;  of 
the  way  in  which  He  set  at  nought  the  common  rules  about 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  But  the  awe  which  He  in- 
spired hushed  the  voices  which  would  otherwise  have  risen  in 
remonstrance.  It  was  only  when  the  path  of  the  "Prophet  of 
Nazareth"  seemed  to  darken — only  when  they  found  that  He 
was  arraying  against  Himself,  first  the  disapprobation,  then 
the  indignant  hatred,  of  all  those  on  whpm  they  looked  with 
the  deepest  veneration — that  they  thought  it  a  duty,  if  pos- 
sible, to  control  his  actions.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  realise 
how  profound  was  the  respect  with  which  the  humbler  Jews 
looked  up  to  the  Priests,  the  Sanhedrists,  the  Pharisees,  the 
Teachers  of  the  Law.  The  titles  which  the  Rabbis  so  eagerly 
accepted,  the  tone  of  contempt  which  they  adopted  towards 
those  who  were  not  initiated  into  their  system,  the  insolence 
with  which  they  depreciated  all  who  did  not  belong  to  their 
little  clique,  had  gradually  led  the  mass  of  the  Jews  to  accept 
these  teachers  at  their  own  estimate,  and  to  obey  their  de- 
cisions with  almost  abject  humility.  It  was  inconceivable  to 
them  how  one  of  the  people  should  dare  to  scorn  the  wisdom, 
to  set  aside  the  authority,  to  defy  the  injunctions  of  their 
idolised  theologians.  It  startled  them  that  He  should  de- 
nounce as  blind  guides  and  pernicious  hypocrites  the  men 
whom  they  had  been  accustomed  to  regard  as  little  Ezras  or 
Simeons— as  "uprooters  of  mountains" — as  "glories  of  the 
Law"— as  men  of  whom  the  least  was  "worthy  that  the 
Shechinah  should  rest  upon  him.""    They,  too,  were  inclined 

omitted,  per- 


•  Mark  vi.  4  ;   Matt,  xiii    57  ;  Luke  iv.  24  :  John  iv.  44.     The  last  words  are 
hap*  out  of  rcs,>ect  f<.r  the  fcdinKS  of  the  Lord's  brethren,  by  the  two  later  Evan 


vangelists. 


»  The  Rabbn.  like  ihc  incdiasval  schoolmen,  were  distinguished  by  such  flattering  titles 
Ihe  glory  of  the  I.aw."  "the  Holy,"  etc.  ' 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  333 

to  repeat,  "Is  not  this  the  carpenter?"  In  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury men  marvelled  at  the  audacity  of  the  German  monk  who 
dared  to  breathe  defiance  against  the  immemorial  majesty  of 
the  Papacy,  and  to  brave  the  opposition  of  a  compact  ecclesi- 
asticism.  But  the  courage  of  Luther  was  as  nothing  to  what 
Jews  who  did  not  accept  the  Divine  mission  of  Jesus  must 
have  considered  to  be  the  daring  of  the  Nazarene,  who  cared 
nothing  for  the  threats  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  who  had 
been  despatched  from  Jerusalem  to  watch  His  movements. 
How  could  one  who  "had  never  learnt  letters,"  and  knew 
nothing  of  what  passed  for  "theology" — gaze  without  quail- 
ing on  those  broad  phylacteries,  and  listen  without  reverence 
to  that  micrology  of  erudition?  Was  it  not  amazing  that 
He  should  dare  to  teach  with  personal  authority,  and  without 
any  reference  to  the  precedents  and  technicalities  of  men  who 
had  actually  listened  to  Shammai  and  to  Hillel!  The  brethren 
of  Jesus  could  only  attribute  such  conduct  to  an  enthusiasm 
which  seemed  to  be  getting  beyond  His  own  control.  They 
imagined  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Prophet  was  no  more  subject 
to  the  Prophet..  They  said/' He  is  beside  Himself .''  Forti- 
fying their  interference  with  the  presence  of  His  mother,  they 
went  in  a  body  to  the  skirts  of  the  vast  crowd  which  He  was 
addressing  at  Capernaum,  and  /sent  a  message  that  they 
wished  to  speak  with  Him.  It  was  an  act  of  which  they 
themselves  were  as  yet  incapable  of  understanding  the  im- 
mense irreverence.  It  was  time  that  James  and  Judas  should 
be  taught,  as  Mary  had  been  gently  taught  even  at  the  wed- 
ding-feast of  Cana,  that  for  Him  the  bond  of  earthly  relation- 
ships was  transcended  for  ever.  Stretching  out  His  hand  to 
His  disciples  He  said,  "Behold  My  mother  and  My  brethren! 
For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  My  Father  in  Heaven,  he 
is  My  brother,  and  sister,  and  mother!"' 

Yet  even  this  repudiation  of  their  interference — this  re- 
buke, so  distinct  yet  so  gentle,  of  the  presumption  which 
relied  on  fleshly  kinsmanship — was  not  effectual  to  silence 
finally  the  remonstrances  of  His  "brethren."  Once  more — 
and  this  time  they  were  unable  to  bring  Mary  with  them — they 
ventured  to  proffer  their  advice  to  Jesus;  ventured,  not  ob- 
scurely, to  intimate  their  disapproval  of  His  conduct,  and 
their  rejection  of  His  highest  claims."  The  burst  of  unpopu- 
larity which  had  followed  His  discourse  at  Caperanum  about 
the  Bread  of  Life — the  discourse  in  which   He   had  checked 


Matt.  xii.  49,  50.  "  John  vii.  i-  lo. 


334  THK    KARLV    DAYS   OF   CIIRISTIANITV. 

the  false  Messianic  enthusiasm  excited  by  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand — rendered  His  position  more  and  more  isolated. 
So  great  was  His  peril  that,  though  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
was  at  hand,  He  could  not  go  publicly  to  Jerusalem.  It  was 
at  this  sad  crisis  that  His  brethren  came  to  Him,  and  said, 
with  impatient  perplexity,  "Depart  hence,  and  go  into  Judaea, 
that  Thv  disciples  also" — not  merely  these  few  Galilgeans,  but 
those  who  have  believed  on  Thee  in  Jerusalem  and  Judaea — 
**mav  behold  the  works  that  Thou  doest;  for  no  man  doeth 
anything  in  secret" — as  Thou  art  now  practically  doing — 
"and  seeks  to  be  publicly  acknowledged.'  If  Thou  doest 
these  things" — and  though  the  words  are  not  a  denial  of  His 
work  they  are  at  least  a  cold  and  hesitating  acknowledgment 
— "if  'J'hou  doest  these  things,  manifest  Thyself  to  the  world." 
This  forward  and  ungracious  speech,  in  which  they  ostenta- 
tiously separate  themselves  from  His  disciples,  is  accounted 
for  by  the  remark  of  the  Apostle,  "For  even  His  brethren 
were  not  believers  on  Him."''  Their  belief,  such  as  it  was, 
was  neither  permanent  nor  deep.  They  may  have  given  to 
His  claims  a  general  acceptance,^  but  their  faith  was  lacking 
in  energy  and  depth.  Had  it  not  been  so,  they  would  never 
have  aspired  to  control  His  actions.  Once  more  His  calm 
words  involved  a  deep  reproof:  "My  opportunity  has  not  yet 
come;  your  opportunity  is  always  ready.  The  world  cannot 
hate  you;  but  Me  it  hateth  because  I  bear  witness  concern- 
ing it  that  its  deeds  are  evil.  Go  ye  up  unto  the  feast.  1  do 
not  mean  yet  to  go  up  unto  this  feast,  because  my  oppor- 
tunity is  not  yet  fulhlled."  Accordingly  He  did  not  go  up  to 
the  feast  publicly,  or  with  them,  or  as  one  who  went  to  ob- 
serve it;  He  only  appeared  in  the  Temple  suddenly  in  the 
midst  of  it  But  what  a  severance  between  Himself  and  them 
the  words  reveal!  How  marked  is  the  emphasis  of  the  con- 
tra.sted  pronouns!  How  unmistakably  do  His  words  imply 
that  they  belonged  as  yet  to  the  world  of  Judaism  and  Phari- 
saism; to  the  world  which  hated  Him;  to  the  world  in  which 
t/ity  were  in  no  sort  of  peril,  but  which  was  seeking  to  take 
IlisWia.  T/uy  were  members  of  the  religious  world;  they 
sided  with  the  dominant  parties;  they  walked  in  the  odour 
of  sanctity;  they  were  breathing  the  beatitude  of  orthodox 
benediction,  //is  was  the  isolation  and  the  persecution  of 
the  Prophet— of  the  Prophet  who  awoke  the  deadliest  of  all 
forms   of   hatred— the   hatred  of  professional  partisans;  the 

•  John  vii.  4  :  iv  nappr,9i<t  elfai.  9  Ver.  5  :  ovSi  yip  oi  aSe\<f>o\  imarevov  ui  avrov. 

•  buch  a»  li  cxprcA!>cd  by  iriaTCvcic  rivt,  bul  not  by  iriaTeweiv  eis. 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER    OF   S'C.    JAMES.  ^S6 

hatred  which  must  ever  be  the  meed  of  those  who  are  not 
afraid  to  pluck  off  the  mask  of  the  hypocrite,  to  startle  the 
slumbers  of  a  false  orthodoxy,  and  to  expose  the  insincerity 
of  a  false  pretence. 

In  the  four  Gospels  we  do  not  again  hear  of  the  brothers 
of  the  Lord.  They  were  not  with  Him  during  the  last  scenes; 
they  were  not  at  the  Last  Supper;  they  were  not  in  the  ( har- 
den; tbey  drew  no  sword  for  Him;  they  did  not  follow  Him 
to  the  Hall  of  Caiaphas;  they  did  not  defile  themselves  for 
the  feast  by  entering  the  Praetorium;  they  did  not  stand  be- 
side the  Cross;  they  did  not,  so  far  as  we  know,  visit  with 
sorrowing  gifts  His  tomb. 

Yet,  strange  to  say,  when  next  we  meet  them  they  have 
thrown  tliemselves  heart  and  soul  into  the  struggluig  fortunes 
of  the  Church!  It  is  after  the  Ascension.  The  Eleven  have 
returned  from  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  go  to  the  Upper 
Room,  which  is  their  regular  place  of  meeting  in  Jerusalem; 
and  in  that  Upper  Room  are  not  only  the  Eleven,  but  also 
Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus  and  His  brethren.^  From  that 
moment  as  a  body  disappear,  and  we  hear  no  more  of  either 
Joses  or  Simon.  But  Jude  lived  to  travel  as  a  Christian  mis- 
sionary, and  to  write  the  Epistle  which  bears  his  name;  and 
James  lived  to  furnish  the  nearest  approach  to  a  bishop  which 
is  be  to  found  in  the  Apostolic  age,  and  to  be  for  twenty  years 
a  main  pillar  of  the  persecuted  Church. 

Whence  came  this  man^ellous  change? 

We  have  no  account  of  it;  we  have  no  means  of  even  con- 
jecturally  explaining  it,  unless  the  explanation  lies  in  three 
words  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  In  his  relation  of  the  appearances 
of  Christ  after  His  Resurrection  he  says  that  He  was  seen  of 
Kephas,  then  of  the  twelve,  then  of  more  than  five  hundred 
brethren  at  once;  ''f/ien  He  was  seen  of  James. '"^  That  this 
James  means  the  Lord's  brother,  the  head  of  the  Church  in 
Jerusalem,  is  clear,  because  when  the  Epistle  was  written  the 
son  of  Zebedee  was  dead,  and  the  son  of  Alphaeus  was  un- 
known to  Gentile  Christians.  They  knew  but  of  one  James, 
the  one  whose  authority  was  so  highly  venerated,  and  the  only 
one  whom  St.  Paul  mentions  by  name.  Three,  and  three 
alone,  were  singled  out  to  be  separate  eye-witnesses  of  the  ap- 
pearances of  the  risen  Christ  on  earth.  One  was  the  leader  of 
the  Apostolic  band,  the  repentant  Kephas;  another  was  she 
who  loved  much,  whose  love  made  her  last  at  the  cross  and 
earliest  at  the  tomb;  the  third  was  the  brother  of  the  Lord. 

1  Acts  i.  14.  *  I  Cor.  XV.  7  :  eireira  ^^Qr\  *laxu>(Sa>. 


336  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Not  a  single  further  detail  is  added  in  Scripture  respecting 
the  appearances  to  Kephas  and  to  James.  But  in  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews — the  most  ancient  and  trustworthy  of  the 
apocryphal  Gospels — we  find  the  striking  story  that  James  had 
bound  himself  by  an  oath  that  from  the  hour  when  he  had 
drunk  of  the  Lord's  cup  he  would  neither  eat  nor  drink  until 
he  should  see  Him  risen  from  the  dead.  "Now  the  Lord, 
when  He  had  given  the  cloth  {sindon)  to  the  servant  of  the 
priest,  went  to  James  and  appeared  to  him,  and  said  after  a 
while,  'Bring  hither  a  table  and  bread;'  and  He  took  bread, 
and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  James  the  Just, 
and  said  to  him,  'My  brother,  eat  thy  bread  now,  for  the  Son 
of  Man  hath  risen  from  among  those  that  sleep.'  '"  There 
are  several  circumstances  here  which  show  us  indeed  that 
we  are  in  the  region  of  the  Apocryphal,  for  James  was  not 
present  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  there  did  not  exist  among 
the  Apostles — in  spite  of  all  that  Jesus  had  told  them — any 
expectation  of  the  Resurrection.  Indeed,  so  far  from  the  be- 
lief creating  the  conviction,  we  are  expressly  told  of  the  in- 
credulous astonishment  with  which  they  received  the  first 
Easter  tidings.  But  though  there  may  be  some  confusion  in 
these  details,  there  is  nothing  improbable,  nothing  which  is 
unlike  St.  James's  character,  in  the  main  facts  of  the  tradition. 
That  he  loved  the  Brother  with  whom  he  had  lived  at  Naza- 
reth for  thirty  years  we  cannot  doubt.  Although  he  may  have 
been  unconvinced  at  first  of  His  Divine  claims,  though  he 
may  even  have  yielded  to  doubts  respecting  His  Messiahship, 
yet  one  into  whose  heart  had  sunk  so  deeply  the  lessons  of 
sentence  after  sentence  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  could 
not  have  regarded  Him  as  other  than  a  great  prophet  from 
the  earliest  days  of  His  public  ministry.  All  his  personal  af- 
fection may  have  been  stirred  to  its  lowest  depths  by  the 
knowledge  of  what  He  had  suffered.  His  nascent  and  imper- 
fect belief  may  have  been  greatly  strengthened  by  the  events 
which  accompanied  the  Crucifixion,  and  which  made  so  deep 
an  impression  not  only  on  the  awestruck  Jews,  but  even  on  the 
hcatiien  centurion.  It  is  therefore  far  from  impossible  that 
when  he  heard  the  first  reports  of  His  resurrection,  the  sub- 
sequent intelligence  that  He  had  been  actually  secn—diXiCi  not 
only  by  Mary  of  Magdala,  but  by  Kephas,  and  by  the  Twelve, 
and  by  five  hundred  brethren  at  once— he  may  have  bound 
himself  by  the  not  uncommon  cherem,  or  ban,  which  the  tradi- 


Jcr.  De  I'irr.  Illustr.  2. 


LIFE    AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  33/ 

tion  records.  He  was  a  Nazarite,  and  bound  by  a  general 
vow;  he  would  now  make  a  special  vow  neither  to  eat  nor 
drink  until  he  too  had  seen  the  Lord — until  he  had  been  thus 
thoroughly  convinced  that  all  which  yet  remained  of  his  past 
doubts  was  wrong  and  vain.  However  this  may  be,  we  know 
on  the  testimony  of  St.  Paul  that  a  special  vision  was  vouch- 
safed to  him.  \Ve  know  further  from  sacred  history  that  he 
became  thenceforth,  until  his  martyrdom,  a  faithful  shepherd 
of  souls,  a  tower  of  defence  to  the  Church  of  Christ  in  the 
Holy  City. 

Seven  or  eight  years  elapse  before  we  again  hear  of  him,' 
and  then  it  is  merely  a  passing  allusion  to  the  fact  that  St.  Paul 
saw  him  in  Jerusalem,  three  years  after  his  conversion,  when 
he  had  been  forced  to  fly  for  his  life  from  Damascus.  All  the 
brethren  at  first — and  therefore  James  among  them — received 
the  new  convert,  who  had  lately  been  so  terrible  an  inquisitor, 
with  fear  and  suspicion.  When  the  generosity  of  Barnabas 
had  rescued  his  friend  from  this  painful  isolation,  Peter  was 
the  earliest  to  hold  out  to  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship, 
and  from  that  time  James  seems  also  to  have  received  him 
with  kindness."  Even  then  St.  James  appears  to  have  held 
some  authoritative  position  in  the  Church,  though  he  is  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Apostles.  Since  no  other  Apostle  except 
Peter  is  mentioned,  we  may  infer  that  they  were  not  at  Jeru- 
salem at  that  moment.  Indeed,  the  whole  Church  had  been 
scattered  by  the  storm  of  persecution  which  had  been  directed 
by  Paul  himself. 

Six  more  years  elapse  before,  in  a.d.  44,  we  again  meet 
with  the  name  of  James.  In  that  year  Herod  Agrippa  I.,  in 
trying  to  sustain  the  politic  role  of  a  national  king,  had  taken 
the  readiest  method  of  pleasing  the  Jews  by  harassing  the 
Christians.  He  had  accordingly  seized  James  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  and  put  him  to  death.  The  selection  of  the  elder 
son  of  Zebedee  for  a  victim  shows  either  that  the  burning  zeal 
was  still  unquenched  which  in  old  days  had  earned  for  him 
and  his  brother  John  the  surname  of  Sons  of  Thunder,  or  that 
he  was  at  that  time  regarded  as  the  leader  in  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem.  Why  that  position  was  assigned  to  him  rather 
than  to  Peter  we  can  only  conjecture.  It  may  have  been  owing 
to  his  position,  or  to  his  connexion  with  Jerusalem,  or  to  the 
fact  that  as  the  son  of  Salome  he  was  the  near  relative  of  his 
Lord.      No  sooner  had   he  been  executed  than,  seeing  the 


About  A.D.  38.  2  Gal. 

22 


338  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

delif^ht  which  the  Jcavs  had  taken  in  his  execution,  Herod 
proceeded  further 'to  seize  Peter.  The  angelic  deliverance 
of  Peter  from  prison  thwarted  the  king's  murderous  designs; 
and  when  Peter  went  at  once  to  the  house  of  Mary  the  mother 
of  John  Mark,  to  remove  the  anxious  fears  of  the  assembled 
brethren  before  his  flight  from  Jerusalem,  he  ended  his  hasty 
narrative  with  the  words,  "Tell  Jatnes  and  the' brethren  these 
things.'" 

The  expression  shows  that  James  the  Lord's  brother  had 
succeeded  the  son  of  Zebedee  as  the  chief  person  in  the 
mother  Church.  The  twelve  years  had  now  elapsed  during 
which,  according  to  a  probable  tradition,  the  Apostles  had 
been  bidden  to  stay  at  Jerusalem  before  they  scattered  far  and 
wide  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.'^  The  stationary 
superintendence  of  the  little  body  of  Christians  in  the  head- 
quarters of  Jewish  fanaticism  was  felt  to  be  a  position  which 
belonged  less  fitly  to  any  of  the  Twelve  than  to  one  who, 
though  he  might  in  the  less  technical  sense  be  called  an 
Apostle,  was  not  one  of  the  chosen  witnesses  to  whom  had 
been  entrusted  the  evangelisation  of  all  the  world. 

To  James,  therefore,  the  Lord's  brother — not  only  because 
he  was  the  Lord's  brother,  but  because  of  the  force  of  his 
character  and  influence — fell  naturally  and  at  once  the  office 
of  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.^  The  appointment  was  eminently 
wise,  and  as  Jerusalem  was  yearly  visited  at  the  great  feasts 
by  hundreds  of  thousands  of  pilgrims,  of  whom  multitudes 
were  Christians,"'  this  position  at  once  gave  to  the  Lord's 
brother  an  immense  authority.  He  became  a  pillar  of  the 
Church;^  and  if  it  had  been  in  the  power  of  any  one  even  at 
the  eleventh  hour  to  win  over  the  people  of  the  Ancient  Cove- 
nant, he  would  have  achieved  the  task.  The  sha"cIow  of  an 
awful  my.stery  clung  about  him  as  the  earthly  brother  of  Him 
Whose  true  Divinity  as  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  was  brought 
home  more  deeply  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  hearts  of  the  dis- 
ciples as  year  after  year  passed  by.  And  this  awe  of  his  per- 
sonality, enhanced  among  the  Jews  by  his  Davidic  descent, 

'  Acts  xii.  17. 

2  V'*^'."/  ^y^"*  ^^*'°>"-  ^'''  5.  §  43.  quoting  the  Kerugma  Petrou ;  and  Apollonius,  a/>. 
Lu.scb.  //.  A.  V.  18. 

»  Clemens  («/.  F.uscb.  //./•;.  ii.  1)  says  that  he  was  appointed  bishop  by  Peter  and  the 
two  v.iis  of /cbcdcc.  Hcgcsippus  says  :  StaSe'xeTai  5e  Tr)v  "E.KKKr)tTiav  nera  ruiv  uiroaToKotv 
6  a««A(^  Tov  Kvptoy  Uku^o^,  k.t.X.  It  is  amazing  that  Jerome  should  have  ventured  to 
render  this  hustcpit  Kxclcsiam  Hicrosolymae  /iost  npostolos  frater  domini  Jacobus."  It 
mcam      7/'«M  the  Apostles,"  and  sliows  that  James  was  not  one  of  the  Twelve. 

Ill  Acts  XXI.  20  we  find  the  startlini?  expression,  '-Ihou  bcUoldest,  brother,  lw<v  many 
'"yyids  ,n6<rat  (ivpiait^,  ij.crc  are  of  lews  who  have  believed." 

-  ttal.  II.  9. 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF    ST.    JAMES.  339 

was  increased  by  the  stern  sanctity  of  his  character.  This 
was  he — so  men  whispered,  and  we  catch  the  echo  of  their 
whispers  centuries  afterwards — "who  is  wont  to  go  alone  into 
the  sanctuary,  and  is  found  prostrate  in  prayer,  so  that  his 
knees  have  grown  hard  and  worn  Hke  a  camel's,  because  he 
is  ever  kneeling  and  worshipping  God,  and  asking  forgiveness 
for  the  peole."^  "This  is  the  righteous  one."  "This  is  01/- 
/I'am,  the  bulwark  of  the  people."  "He  is  even  allowed," 
they  said,  "like  the  high  priest,  to  wear  on  his  forehead  the 
petalon,  the  plate  of  gold  on  which  is  inscribed  Holiness  to  the 
Lord."^  The  latter  notion  is  probably  a  symbolic  expression 
translated  into  a  fact,^  for  there  is  no  trace  that  such  a  privi- 
lege was  accorded  to  any  one,  even  if  he  were,  as  James  may 
have  been,  of  Aaronic  as  well  as  of  Davidic  origin.*  But  it  is 
not  incredible  that  JameS  may,  as  a  Nazarite,  have  been  al- 
lowed to  share  in  some  of  the  priestly  privileges.'^  In  any 
case,  these  stories  must  indicate  that  he  was  held  in  excep- 
tional reverence,  for  legends  only  gather  round  the  names  of 
the  greatest,  just  as  it  is  only  the  loftiest  mountain-tops  to 
which  the  mists  most  densely  cling.  And  every  indication 
with  which  we  are  furnished  shows  that  he  was  providentially 
fitted  to  give  one  last  chance  to  all  who  would  accept  salvation, 
whether  in  the  Jewish  capital  or  amid  the  Twelve  'i'ribes 
of  the  Dispersion.  From  the  whole  character  of  his  views  he 
would  speak  to  them  in  a  voice  more  acceptable  than  that  of 
any  other  man. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  anger  which  arose  at  Jerusalem 
when  the  news  arrived  that  Peter,  not  content  with  baptising 
Gentile  proselytes,  had  actually  lived  in  their  houses  and  eaten 
with  them,  the  name  of  James  is  not  mentiooed.  Nor,  again, 
are  we  told  that  St.  Paul  saw  him  in  his  hurried  and  unimpor- 
tant visit,  in  the  year  of  Peter's  imprisonment,  to  carry  alms 
from  the  Gentile  Christians  at  Antioch  to  their  suffering 
brethren,  the  "saints"  of  Jerusalem.'  But  five  years  later, 
about  A.D.  50,  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  went  up  a  second 
time  to  Jerusalem  for  the  settlement  of  the  great  question 
which  was  then  agitating  the  Church,  we  again  see  St.  James 
as  the  most  prominent  figure  in  that  memorable  Synod.  The 
question  whether  the  (ientiles  were  or  were  not  to  be  circum- 
cised— was  one  on  the  decision  of  which  hung  the  entire  future 


»  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  23.  2  Kpiphan.  Haer.  Ixxix.  4 ;  Ixxviii.  13. 

3  As  is  the  case  with  the  similar  story  told  bv  Polvcrates  about  St.  John  (Kuseb.  //.  E. 
24).  '■*  iMary  was  related  to  Elizabeth. 

5  See  supra,  p.  330.     Dean  Plumptre  refers  to  Maiin'onides,  More/i  Nevochim,  iii.  43. 
^  Acts  XI.  30  ;  xii.  25. 


340  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  Gentile  Christianity.  It  involved  the  whole  relation  of  the 
Gentiles  to  the  Mosaic  Law.  I  have  elsewhere  so  fully  en- 
tered into  its  bearing,  and  into  the  circumstances  of  the  scene 
at  which  it  was  decided,  that  I  must  be  content  to  refer  to 
what  I  have  there  said.'  But  I  may  here  repeat  that  the  whole 
wei.c^htand  responsibility  of  the  decision  rested  with  St.  James, 
and  that  he  rose  on  this  occasion  to  a  height  worthy  of  his 
parentage  and  of  his  character.  In  the  face  of  all  the  preju- 
dices of  his  life — rising  superior  to  the  views  of  all  the  Rabbis, 
his  predecessors  and  contemporaries — ignoring  the  wrathful 
murmurs  and  fanatical  arguments  of  the  Pharisaic  Zealots,  he 
decided  in  an  opposite  sense  to  what  seems  to  have  been  ex- 
pected of  him.  He,  the  Righteous — he,  the  Bulwark  of  Juda- 
ism— he,  the  priestly  Nazarite,  to  whom,  Christian  though  he 
was,  even  Jews  looked  up  with  reverence — he,  who  was  so 
rigidly  accurate  an  observer  of  all  the  precepts  of  legal  right- 
eousness— he,  the  very  man  whose  name  and  authority  had 
been  claimed  by  the  Judaic  emissaries  who  had  troubled  the 
Church  of  Antioch  by  their  insistence  upon  legal  scrupulosity 
and  Jewish  particularism — he,  whose  name  they  afterwards 
abused  in  counter-missions  to  undo  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul — 
he  gave  his  voice  in  favour  of  the  liberal  view!  Never,  per- 
haps, did  a  result  so  awful  in  its  responsibility  depend  on  the 
wisdom  of  any  single  man.  The  assembly  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians in  the  Holy  City,  seething  with  intense  excitement,"  hung 
on  the  lips  of  their  Bishop,  as,  in  the  hush  of  awe  inspired  by 
his  person  and  character,  he  rose  with  the  long  locks  of  the 
Nazarite  streaming  over  his  white  robes,  to  close  the  discus- 
sion in  which  so  many  fierce  passions  had  been  aroused.  The 
Pharisees  had  been  insisting  on  the  Law— the  Law  of  Moses — 
the  sacred,  irrevocable,  fiery  Law  of  Sinai,  for  the  sake  of 
which  they  thought  the  very  world  had  been  created — the 
Law,  which  the  Saviour  had  Himself  said  that  He  came  not 
to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil— nay,  which  He  had  personally  fulfilled 
— nay,  respecting  which  He  had  openly  declared  that  no  jot 
nor  tittle  of  it  should  ever  pass  away.  Who  had  the  power  to 
say  that  this  Law  which  God  had  uttered  from  the  rolling  fire, 
with  the  sound  of  a  trumpet  amid  myriads  of  angels— who 
should  dare  to  say  that  any  portion  of  it  was  special?  that  any 
utterance  of  it  was  evanescent?  Who  would  dare  to  argue 
that  it  was  meant  for  Jews  only,  and  that  it  need  not  be 
adopted  by  proselytes,  and  that  it  had  not  been  intended  for 


Sec  I.i/t  ,tn,i  U'or/,  of  St.  Paul.  i.  405-408.  2  Acts  xv.  2. 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  34 1 

all  the  world?  Could  even  the  Bath  Kol  itself,  the  voice  from 
Heaven/  supersede  its  universal  sacredness,  or  absolve,  were 
it  but  one  Gentile,  from  so  much  as  the  position  of  a  phylac- 
tery or  the  colour  of  a  fringe?  Did  not  tradition  say  that  all 
the  souls  even  of  nations  yet  unborn  had  been  summoned  to 
the  awful  mountain  to  hear  that  Law  delivered?  And  be  it 
remembered  that  these  arguments  were  being  uttered  at  Jeru- 
salem, in  the  midst  of,  and  to  the  knowledge  of,  a  madly  fan- 
atical population — uttered,  as  it  were,  in  the  audience  of  those 
long  centuries  of  Sacred  history  to  which  every  tower  and  pin- 
nacle of  the  Holy  City  was  bearing  witness — uttered  by  men 
who  were  not  only  Pharisees,  but  Christians.  And  let  it  be 
further  remembered  that  every  argument  which  they  were 
urging  was  one  addressed  as  it  were  in  shorthand  to  the  im- 
passioned prejudices  of  the  majority  of  the  hearers;  antici- 
pated almost  before  its  utterance  by  their  quick  and  excited 
sensibility;  weighted  with  the  emphasis  of  those  lifelong  con- 
victions, which  come  to  be  identified  with  the  very  essence  of 
religion.  Against  this  mighty  current  of  obstinate  Judaism, 
Paul,  the  once  fierce  Inquisitor  and  Persecutor — Paul,  the 
hated  renegade  of  the  Sanhedrin — Paul,  who  had  his  share 
in  the  death  of  the  proto-martyr — Paul,  the  suspected  teacher 
of  heathen  customs  which  were  the  subversion  of  legal  right- 
eousness— Paul,  and  even  Barnabas,  tainted,  as  many  of  these 
Pharisees  would  have  thought,  by  intercourse  with  "the 
enemy," — would  have  struggled  in  vain.  One  tower  of 
strength  the  wiser  and  larger-hearted  party  possessed  in  the 
advocacy  of  Peter;  but  Peter  himself,  though  he  adduced  ir- 
resistible proofs  of  a  Divine  sanction  for  what  he  had  done, 
had  barely  been  able  to  justify,  at  Jerusalem,  the  isolated  bap- 
tism and  admission  into  fellowship  of  a  single  pious  proselyte. 
The  question  now  at  stake  was  not  the  treatment  of  an  individual 
case,  but  the  obligations  of  the  whole  Gentile  world.  Was 
the  coming  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  to  be  the  annulment  of  the 
Jewish  Law,  the  obliteration  of  all  that  was  most  distinctive  in 
the  Jewish  Church?  Was  the  triumph  of  Lsrael  to  involve  its 
national  effacement?  Such  were  the  questions  which  led  to  a 
storm  of  passionate  dispute.  But  meanwhile,  before  the  con- 
vening of  this  deeply-moved  assembly,  the  result  of  which  was 
to   be   fraught  with  consequences  so  momentous,  Paul  and 

1  See  the  memorable  story  in  the  Talmud,  where  the  Rabbis  repudiate  even  the  testimony 
of  the  Bath  Kol  against  one  of  their  Halachoth.     "It  is  not  mysterious  voices,"  said  Rabbi 
Joshua,  "but  the  majority  of  the  Sages  which  ought  alone  to  decide  questions  of  doctrine 
(Bava  Meuia,  f  59  /')•     See  my  paper  on  "Christ  and  tlie  Oral  Law"  in  the  Expositor, 
(v-  233)- 


343  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Barnabas  had,  with  consummate  wisdom,  secured  the  adhe- 
sion of  the  three  great  pillar-Apostles.  Peter  was  already  with 
them  in  heart;  but  Peter's  impulsive  and  yielding  temperament 
might  have  been  little  able  to  stand  alone  against  the  rushing 
tide  of  fanaticism'if  he  had  not  been  supported  by  the  author- 
ity of  John  and  James.  But  John  was  won  by  the  clear  signs 
that  Ciod  had  been  with  the  heroic  missionaries,  and  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  set  His  seal  on  all  their  work.  And  when 
lames  also  was  convinced — when  even  his  practical  wisdom 
had  grasped  the  truth,  which  was  the  last  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  made  perfectly  clear  to  the  minds  of  the  early  Apostles 
— the  greatest  victory  ever  achieved  by  Gentile  Christianity 
was  won.  The  fiery  speech  of  St.  Peter  might  only  have 
fanned  the  prejudices  of  the  Jewish  Christians  into  a  fiercer 
flame.  Even  to  the  striking  narratives  of  Paul  and  Barnabas 
they  listened  in  unconvinced  silence.  They  attached  chief 
importance  to  the  original  Apostles  and  witnesses.^  Their 
hopes  were  in  James.  And  James  arose  to  dash  those  hopes 
to  the  ground.  He  referred  to  the  narrative  of  "Symeon;" 
he  passed  over  in  silence  the  speeches  of  Barnabas  and  Paul; 
but  then — appealing  to  the  words  of  a  prophet  who  was  a 
Nazarite  like  himself — with  his  "  Therefore  I  decide'"  he  settled 
the  question.'^  And  his  decision  was  that  the  Gentiles  were 
to  be  admitted  into  the  Christian  Church  on  the  footing  of 
proselytes  of  the  Gate,  and  were  not  to  be  burdened  with  any 
requirements  beyond  the  simple  and  easy  rules  of  the  Noa- 
chian  Dispensation.  I  have  pointed  out  elsewhere  how  many 
points  of  discussion  were  still  left  undecided  by  this  decree; 
how  local  and  how  transitory  was  its  authority;  how  completely, 
in  Churches  outside  the  limited  circle  to  which  the  letter  was 
addressed,  St.  Paul  set  aside  its  authority.  I  have  also  shown 
how  openly  the  implied  contract  was  also  broken  by  those  who 
were  most  hostile  to  the  Apostle  of  the  heathen,  and  who,  ap- 
pealing too  often  to  credentials  furnished  by  St.  James,  so- 
phisticated St.  Paul's  feeble  converts  and  undid  his  toilsome 
work.  But,  meanwhile,  James  himself,  with  worthy  firmness 
and  true  wisdom  from  on  high,  had  conceded  the  whole  prin- 
ciple at  issue.  When  the  principle  had  been  thus  once  con- 
ceded, it  was,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  conceded  for  ever. 
The  details  could  be  safely  left  to  future  adjustment  as  they 


'  See  Clem.  Hotn.  xix.  17. 

'  Acts  XV.  19.  Two  resemblances  have  been  observed  between  the  speech  and  the  Epistle 
-  'D  The  epistolary  greeting,  \iki[>tKV  (sec  p.  376)  ;  and  (2)  a6eA(/)oi,  aKOuo-are  (Acts  xv.  13  ; 
Ja.   u.  5). 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  343 

were  seen  by  the  light  of  circumstances.  No  one  who  called 
himself  a  Christian,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  could  really  dis- 
pute a  rule  which  had  been  laid  down  by  the  concurrent  au- 
thority not  only  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  and  Peter,  but  even  of 
the  Beloved  Disciple  and  of  the  Brother  of  the  Lord.  But 
myriads  of  Jewish  Christians  remained  secretly  unpersuaded, 
until  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  like  a  lightning-Hash  from 
Heaven,  dispelled  their  perplexities  by  the  Divine  logic  of 
events. 

Years  again  pass  by,  and  we  have  but  incidental  refer- 
ences to  the  name  of  James.  It  is  clear  that  if  James  was 
satisfied  as  to  the  right  of  St.  Paul  to  act  as  he  had  done, 
many  of  his  adherents  were  not.  In  violation  of  the  whole 
spirit  of  the  synodical  compact,  they  insisted  on  maintaining 
a  rigid  line  of  distinction  between  Jews  and  uncircumcised 
Gentiles;  and  their  presence  at  Antioch  was  so  successful  in 
reawakening  the  terrors  of  a  fancied  unorthodoxy  that  Peter 
himself  once  more  wavered,  and  even  Barnabas  was  led  away 
with  the  dissimulation  which  followed  the  arrival  of  these 
"certain  from  James."  It  is  not  necessary  once  more  to 
write  the  history  of  that  bitter  quarrel  which  nearly  rent  as- 
under the  unity  of  the  early  Church,  and  which  it  took  a  full 
century  to  heal.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  the  habits  and  con- 
victions of  a  lifetime  can  never  be  lightly,  and  rarely  with  com- 
pleteness, laid  aside.  Although  St.  James  had  shown  on  the 
one  great  occasion  a  noble  liberality,  yet  his  sympathies  were 
to  the  last  with  the  Jewish  Christians.  As  the  head  of  their 
party  and  the  exponent  of  their  views,  he  could  never  have 
felt  in  entire  accord  with  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  Hence 
his  memory  was  fondly  cherished  by  all  Judaisers,  and  the 
Ebionites  claimed  his  special  patronage.'  Peter  weis  too  wide 
in  his  sympathies,  too  free  from  narrowness  and  prejudice  to 
be  the  chosen  leader  of  so  intensely  Judaic  a  sect.  The  Naz- 
arenes  also,  who  were  Judaists  but  not  heretical,  looked  up  to 
James  with  the  highest  reverence.  In  the  Church  of  Jeru- 
salem he  was  succeeded  by  Symeon  son  of  Clopas,  who  is  said 
to  have  suffered  martyrdom,  at  the  age  of  120,  in  the  reign  of 
Hadrian.  Every  one' of  the  next  thirteen  Bishops  was  of  the 
Circumcision.'  The  first  Gentile  Bishop  was  Marcus  ^(a.d. 
137),  who  presided  over  the  Church  when  some  of  the  Chris- 


1  In  the  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  and  Rpistles  he,  and  not  Peter,  is  elected  to  the  rank 
of  supreme  and  universal  Bishop.  One  Ebionite  romance,  the  ''  Anahatlimot  lakobou,  went 
so  far  as  to  describe  his  ascension  into  Heaven.     Epiphan.  Uacr.  \xx.  16. 

2  Euseb,  iv.  5. 


344  'I'"^'^    KARLV    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

tians  had  returned  from  Pella  to  Jerusalem,  then  called  by  its 
new  name  of  ^'Elia  Capitolina. 

That  St.  James  continued  to  the  last  to  be  swayed  by  the 
thoughts  and  traditions  of  his  earlier  life  may  be  asserted 
without  any  blame  to  him.  It  is  only  what  we  see  every  day. 
']"he  saints  of  God,  who  will  be  very  near  and  very  dear  to  each 
other  in  Heaven,  are  on  earth  separated  by  bitter  prejudices, 
by  party  shibboleths,  by  mutual  misunderstandings,  by  the 
almost  grotesque  misrepresentations  in  which  they  mutually 
indulge.  The  Holy  Spirit  of  God  was  with  St.  Paul,  and 
with  St.  James,  and  with  each  of  the  Apostles,  dividing  to 
each  man  severally  as  He  would.  But  there  was  a  diversity 
of  gifts  and  graces  in  accordance  with  the  individuality  of 
each;  nor  did  the  Holy  Spirit  bestow  on  any  one  of  them  an 
infallible  wisdom  or  a  perfect  sinlessness.  "Even  a  Paul," 
as  St.  Chrysostom  says,  "was  still  but  a  man."  It  is  surely 
one  of  the  heresies  of  modern  times,  one  of  the  faithless  mis- 
conceptions which  alter  the  central  meaning  of  Christianity,  to 
suppose  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  Who  w^as  promised  for  all  time, 
was  with  the  Apostles  and  is  not  with  us.  He  is  with  us.  He 
is  with  all  who  seek  Him.  But  as  it  is  alien  from  the  possi- 
bilities of  earthly  life  that  His  indwelling  Presence  should 
make  us  perfect  or  all-wise,  so  neither  did  it  make  them  per- 
fect or  all-wise.  They  were  mortal  men,  not  angels.  They 
were  liable  to  inconsistencies,  and  they  fell  into  errors.  It 
is,  I  think,  an  unmistakable  inference,  both  from  the  hints 
which  we  find  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  from  the  silence 
of  that  book  in  other  places,  that  St.  James  and  St.  Paul  felt 
but  little  congeniality  towards  each  other.  They  differed  in 
sympathies  and  in  temperament.  No  lives  could  be  more 
diverse  than  those  of  these  two  great  servants  of  God.  St. 
Paul  was  constantly  traversing  Europe  and  Asia  in  long  jour- 
neys, living  in  heathen  cities,  crossing  and  recrossing  the 
Mediterranean,  brought  into  daily  contact  with  the  rich  though 
unsanctified  culture  of  the  grandest  nations  of  antiquity,  see- 
ing the  works  and  learning  the  thoughts  of  many  men.  It  was 
impossible  for  him  to  retain  the  Jewish  standpoint  when,  by 
the  wisdom  of  Providence,  his  mind  had  been  enlarged  by 
such  influences  and  such  knowledge.  It  forced  upon  him,  in 
a  way  far  different  from  that  of  theoretical  assent,  the  convic- 
tion of  (Jod's  fiitherhood  over  the  family  of  man.  In  the  light 
of  Christ's  command  to  gather  all  mankind  into  the  fold  of 
His  Church,  the  promises  and  prophecies  which  ran  through- 
out the  whole  Old  Testament  Hashed  into  new  significance. 


LIFE  AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  345 

The  training  which  St.  Paul  had  received  from  God's  Holy 
Spirit,  that  he  might  become  a  true  "vessel  of  election"  to  win 
the  Gentiles  unto  Christ,  shifted,  as  it  were,  the  centre  of 
gravity  of  his  whole  theological  system.  Theologically  as 
well  as  geographically  he  was  now  aware  that  it  was  but  a  fic- 
tion of  Rabbinism  to  regard  Jerusalem  as  the  centre  of  all  the 
earth.  The  one  thing  which  imperilled  the  conversion  of  the 
world  was  the  attempt  to  force  on  the  neck  of  the  Gentiles  a 
yoke  of  observances  which  they  were  unable  to  bear.  It  was 
impossible  for  St.  Paul  to  dwell  on  the  symbolism  which  gave 
to  the  Law  its  true  splendour.  What  he  had  to  enforce  was 
its  deathful,  its  menacing,  its  elementary  aspect  as  a  curse 
and  a  bondage.  He  was  driven  in  the  earnestness  of  contro- 
versy to  use  such  expressions  as  "weak  and  beggarly  ele- 
ments," which  we  cannot  imagine  that  St.  James  could  under 
any  circumstances  have  'brought  himself  to  use.  We  can 
hardly  wonder  if  a  polemic  so  unsparing,  produced  feelings  of 
intense  exasperation.  The  Rabbis  applied  to  their  hedge  of 
Levitical  Halachoth  the  expression  of  the  Book  of  Ecclesias- 
tes  (x.  8),  "Whoso  breaketh  down  a  hedge  a  serpent  shall  bite 
him."  St.  Paul  broke  down  that  hedge  in  every  direction — 
it  was  the  duty  and  object  of  his  life  to  do  so — and  he  was 
bitten  in  consequence  by  the  "offsprings  of  vipers."  They 
whose  work  it  is  to  win  multitudes  to  Christ,  to  show  religion 
in  all  its  width  and  attractiveness,  to  make  it  wear  a  winning 
aspect  in  the  eyes  of  all  who  love  mercy  and  culture,  have  al- 
ways aroused  the  alarmed  antagonism  of  more  timid  natures.' 
But  the  life  and  training  of  St.  James,  and  consequently  to 
a  great  extent  the  colour  of  his  opinions,  were  the  reverse  of 
cosmopolitan.  So  far  as  we  know,  he  never  left  Jerusalem 
after  the  Ascension.  All  that  he  learnt  of  the  outer  world  was 
the  glimpse  of  it  which  he  received  from  intercourse  with  the 
Paschal  pilgrims  who  came  from  "the  Dispersion"  with  all 
their  thoughts  full  of  Jerusalem,  and  of  Jerusalem  alone. 
There  was  nothing  in  such  intercourse  to  decrease,  rather 
there  was  everything  to  intensify,  the  feelings  of  the  Jew  as 
to  the  grandeur  and  importance  of  his  own  privileges.  Now 
the  cause  and  substance  of  those  privileges  lay  in  the  insti- 
tutions which  God  had  given  him,  and  even  more  in  the  cere- 
monial Law,  with  its  service  and  Priesthood,  than  in  the  moral 
Law,  which — in  its  great  outlines — was  common  to  the  Jew 
with  all  mankind.     A  Christian  Jew  might  concede  that  these 

1  "Above  all,  let  us  not  make  the  doors  of  the  Church  bristle  with  razors,  aiid  pitchforks, 
and  bundles  of  thorns"  (H.  Peyrrcyve  to  Pire  Lacordaire). 


346  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

institutions  were  not  obligatory  on  the  Gentile,  at  any  rate  to 
their  full  extent;  but  it  was  almost  impossible  for  him  to 
realise  that  they  had  become  needless  and  insignificant  shad- 
ows for  himself  also.  They  had  been  delivered  from  Sinai  by 
the  voice  of  God  speaking  out  of  the  fire.  How,  then,  could 
they  become  obsolete?  Who  had  repealed  them?  When  had 
they  been  annulled?  Had  any  prophet  greater  than  all  the 
prophets  reduced  to  a  dead  letter  so  much  of  the  Levitic 
Books?  Had  Christ  done  so?  There  were  those  who  argued 
that  implicitly  He  7iad  dont  so;  but  was  the  implicit  and  the 
inferential  a  sufficient  warrant  for  tl^e  abrogation  of  that  which 
was  positive  and  Divine?  Could  it,  moreover,  be  said  with 
certainty  that  Christ  had  even  implicitly  set  aside  the  Mosaic 
Law  which  He  said  He  had  come  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil? 
If  St.  Paul  appealed  to  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  others 
too,  who  thought  that  they  had  the  Spirit  of  God,  did  not  feel 
so  sure  as  to  their  warrant  for  neglecting  or  undervaluing  what 
was  to  them  the  certain  revelation  of  1,500  years  ago. 

Least  of  all  could  it  be  expected  that  one  like  St.  James 
— a  Hebrew  of  Hebrews,  the  son  of  a  "just"  man,  and  one 
whose  own  title  of  "the  Just"  was  a  testimony  to  the  faithful- 
ness of  his  observances,  a  Nazarite  "holy  from  his  mother's 
womb," — would  readily  embrace  such  views.  If  he  did,  would 
not  the  Temple  in  which  he  worshipped,  the  vows  in  which  he 
took  part,  the  Holy  Place  in  which  he  was  permitted  to  kneel, 
the  sacrifices  which  he  offered,  the  streets  of  the  city  which 
he  trod,  the  very  robe  he  wore,  bear  daily  witness  against 
him?  No  doubt  the  Gentiles,  if  they  chose,  might  be  con- 
tented with  the  Noachian  precepts;  and  the  question  as  to  the 
relative  position  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  of  proselvtes  of  the 
<iate  in  comparison  with  proselytes  of  Righteousness,  might 
be  left  in  abeyance.  But  to  St.  James  Jerusalem  was  the  joy 
of  the  whole  earth,  the  City  of  the  Great  King.  To  him  "the 
people"  meant  the  Chosen  People,  and  the  rest  of  the  world 
was,  m  comparison,  as  nothing.'  It  had  not  been  elected  for 
exceptional  blessings.  It  stood  in  a  wholly  inferior  relation 
towards  (;od.  If  such  were  not  the  views  of  St.  James,  they 
were  the  views  of  many  of  those  Priests  and  Pharisees  by 
whom  he  was  surrounded,  and  with  whom  he  lived  in  friend- 
ship. iMany  of  these  were  only  so  far  Christians  that  they 
recognised  in  Christ  a  Divine  Messiah.  They  were  Jews  as 
7^<r//flj  Christians,  and  by  the  whole  bent  of  their  lives  they 

land  ^"''*  "**^  ^  '^"'  ''^  """  '''•■'  ^'"■''^  ""'-'P'  J"'^'*  ^^  cJwoUuh-la-areis,  '-outside  the 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  347 

were  Jews  first  and  Christians  afterwards.  To  many  of  them, 
as  we  see  from  the  New  Testament,  it  was  the  strongest  temp- 
tation of  their  lives  to  waver  half-way  between  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  on  the  verge  of  apostatising  into  the  former.  It 
was  not  so  with  St.  James.  His  heart  was  sure,  his  affections 
fixed,  his  soul  anchored  on  the  rock  of  Christ.*  He  was  a 
Christian  first,  a  Jew  afterwards,  although  his  Epistle  shows 
that  it  was  the  moral  rather  than  the  dogmatic  side  of  Chris- 
tianity which  most  absorbed  his  thoughts.  But  a  man  is  in- 
sensibly affected  by  intercourse  with  those  around  him;  and 
every  circumstance  around  St.  James  was  of  a  kind  to  deepen 
in  his  eyes  the  sanctity  of  Judaism.  Those  about  him,  often 
without  his  sanction,  and  sometimes  in  defiance  of  his  wishes, 
did  not  scruple  to  make  use  of  his  name  to  discountenance 
the  views  of  St.  Paul.  It  was  the  position  of  St.  James  as  the 
head  of  the  Judaising  Christians  which  made  his  name  so  dear 
to  the  Ebionites.'  They  were  glad  to  attribute  to  him  that 
bitter  antagonism  to  the  teachings  of  St.  Paul  which  was  true 
only  of  those  who  usurped  his  name.  This  is  why,  in  the 
spurious  Epistle  of  Peter  prefixed  to  the  Clementine  Hom- 
ilies, Peter  is  made  to  exalt  the  Law  against  the  attacks  of 
"the  enemy,"  and  none  are  regarded  as  full  Christians  but 
those  who  are  devout  and  circumcised.  This  is  why  "James, 
the  slave  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  becomes  in  the  dedica- 
tion of  the  Epistle  of  the  pseudo-Clement,  and  in  the  Liturgy 
of  James,  not  "the  Lord's  brother,"  but  Adelphotheos^  "the 
brother  of  God."  He  is  spoken  of,  with  the  pompous  infla- 
tion of  a  later  sacerdotalism,  as  "the  Lord  James,"  "the 
prince  of  bishops.  Apostles,  and  martyrs,"  "the  bishop  of 
bishops,  who  rules  Jerusalem,  the  Holy  Church  of  the  He- 
brews."^ He  is  the  Archbishop  of  Jerusalem,  who,  sending 
about  even  the  greatest  of  the  Apostles,  at  his  own  behest' 
despatches  St.  Peter  to  withstand  Paul,  "the  enemy,"  thinly 
disguised  in  the  person  of  Simon  Magus.  He  stands  seven 
days  on  the  steps  of  the  Temple  witnessing  (as  though  against 
the  teaching  of  this  "enemy"!)  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  In 
the  Clementine  Recognitions,'  Peter— with  pointed  reference 


>  The  "Ascent  of  James,"  the  "Witness,"  and  the  "  Protevangelion  of  James  "were 
Kbionite  writings.  There  are  imitations  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  in  the  Clementme  Homi- 
lies, lii.  I,  17,  -,4,  55  ;  viii.  7  ;   xix.  2  (A"/.  Clrin.  ad  Jac.  15). 

2  The  forged  letter  of  St.  Peter  in  the  Clementines  is  addressed  "To  James,  the  Lord  and 
Bishop  of  the  Holy  Church,"  who  is  described  as  being  at  the  head  of  a  college  of  seventy 
Presbvters.  The  letter  of  pseudo-Clemens  describing  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Peter  is  addressed 
"To  tames  the  Lord,  and  Bishop  of  Bishops,  who  rules  the  Holy  Church  of  the  Hebrews  in 
Jerusalem,  and  all  the  Churches  everywhere  established  by  the  Providence  of  (iod,  etc.  See 
too  fieco^n.  i.  43.  3  Recogn.  i.  44,  68,  73.  *    Recogn.  Clem.  iv.  35  ;  Horn.  xi.  35. 


348  TIIK    KARLV    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

to  the  remark  of  St.  Paul  1:hat  he  needed  no  letter  of  recom- 
mendation (2  Cor.  iii.  i) — is  made  to  give  solemn  warning  to 
the  Church  to  test  false  Apostles,  and  "to  trust  //^teacher  who 
has  not  brought  a  testimonial"  (as  we  may  call  it)  "from 
James  or  from  his  successor;  because,  unless  any  one  has 
gone  up  to  'Jerusalem  and  there  been  approved  as  being  a 
teacher  fit  and  faithful  to  preach  the  word  of  Christ,  he  is  not 
by  any  means  to  be  received."  Such  were  the  dreams  and 
extravagances  and  ambitions  and  calumnies  of  party  theology 
in  the  days  of  the  Ebionites.  Most  of  this  Ebionising  exalta- 
tion of  Judaic  episcopacy  is  the  nonsense  of  an  heretical  and 
malignant  ecclesiasticism,  savouring  of  the  elements  which 
have  ever  been  the  corruption  of  all  that  is  pure  and  sound 
and  simple  in  the  Church.  But  it  bases  its  fictions  upon  cir- 
cumstances which  at  one  time  did  really  exist,  although  to  a 
much  less  extent  than  this.  It  had  its  root  in  the  real  differ- 
ences between  Judaic  and  Pauline  Christianity.  A  passionate 
contest  did  really  occur  between  those  who  wished  to  main- 
tain intact  and  those  who  wished  to  annul  the  Levitic  Law; 
and  there  may  have  been  a  want  of  heart-felt  union  between 
the  leaders  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  and  the  great  founder 
of  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles.  The  state  of  circumstances 
which  I  have  here  sketched  finds  a  striking  illustration  in  the 
advice  given  by  St.  James  and  his  elders,  in  a.d.  58,  on  the 
occasion  of  St.  Paul's  fifth  and  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  when 
they  recommended  him  to  take  a  part  in  helping  some  poorer 
brethren  to  bring  to  due  conclusion  a  temporary  vow.  That 
vow,  with  all  its  Levitic  ceremonials,  involved  cirqumstances 
which  could  not  but  have  been  painful  to  St.  Paul;  and  the 
recommendation,  though  given  in  all  sincerity  as  a  supposed 
means  of  averting  a  collision  between  Jews  and  Christians, 
produced  the  most  disastrous  consequences  for  many  years. ^ 

From  that  time  forward  we  lose  sight  of  St.  James  in  Scrip- 
ture; but  we  gain  one  more  glimpse  of  him  in  Jewish  history 
and  Christian  tradition  five  years  afterwards,  in  the  year  of 
his  martyrdom,  a.d.  63. 

Respecting  this  martyrdom,  Josephus  tells  us  that  it  was 
due  to  Ananus,  or  Annas — or,  to  give  him  his  true  name, 
Hanan— the  younger,  who  in  that  year  was  High  Priest,  the 
last  of  the  high-priestly  sons  of  the  "Annas"  of  the  Gospels. 


>  Sec  this  fully  cxplainc<l  in  my  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  295-308.  The  Nazarite  vow  might  he 
Ulcen  lor  a  longer  or  shorter  period,  and  one  who  undertook  it  for  a  period  only  was  called  "a 
Naz^rilc  of  day*  '  (sec  Amos  u.  11,  12  :  i  Mace.  iii.  49).  St.  Paul's  vow  at  Cenchreae  may, 
or  may  not,  have  been  of  this  character  (.Acts  xviii.  18). 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  349 

Hatred  against  Christ  and  Christians  had  already  led  the  house 
of  Hanan  to  imbrue  their  guilty  hands  in  the  blood  of  Christ 
and  of  St.  Stephen,  to  approve  of  the  murder  of  James  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  and  to  endeavour  to  procure  the  assassination 
of  St.  Paul.  The  same  unrelenting  animosity  now  hurried 
the  younger  Hanan,  a  man  of  violent  and  imperious  temper, 
into  a  fresh  crime.  He  seized  a  sudden  opportunity  to  put  to 
death  the  Lord's  brother,  and  so  to  strike  one  more  blow  at 
the  Christian  Church.  Festus,  whose  justice  had  saved  the 
life  of  St.  Paul,  and  who  was  one  of  the  most  honourable  of 
the  Roman  procurators  of  Judoea,  had  died  after  a  brief 
government  of  two  years.  Albinus  was  appointed  as  his  suc- 
cessor, and  before  he  arrived  there  was  a  little  interval  during 
which  Judaea  was  only  under  the  distant  supervision  of  the 
Legate  of  Syria.  Agrippa  IL  was  absent  from  Jerusalem. 
At  such  a  time  a  bold  and  cruel  Sadducee  like  this  High 
Priest,  might  easily  induce  the  Sanhedrin  to  stretch  their  au- 
thority, and  exercise  a  power  of  inflicting  capital  punishment 
which  had  ceased  strictly  to  belong  to  them.  He  hoped  that 
this  irregularity  would  be  either  unnoticed  or  condoned  by 
the  Romans,  who  were  very  tolerant  of  what  was  done  in  the 
interests  of  any  legally-permitted  religion,  and  who  would  not 
be  likely  to  interfere  with  an  execution  which  had  no  political 
significance.  Inspiring  the  Sanhedrin  with  his  own  audacity, 
Hanan  induced  them  to  arrest  James  and  other  leading  Chris- 
tians, and  to  have  them  stoned.  The  charge  brought  against 
them  was  doubtless  blasphemy,  for  it  was  impossible  to  charge 
James  at  any  rate  with  "transgressing  the  Law."  Perhaps, 
if  James  had  been  as  much  hated  as  St.  Paul  was,  no  more 
would  have  been  said.  But  James,  at  Jerusalem,  like  Ana- 
nias at  Damascus,  was  profoundly  honoured  by  Jews  no  less 
than  by  Christians.  He,  too,  was  "a  devout  man  according 
to  the  law,  having  a  good  report  of  all  the  Jews  which  dwelt 
there.'"  It  was  not  merely  the  converts  to  Christianity,  but 
"some  of  the  most  equitable  in  the  city,  and  those  who  were 
most  accurate  in  their  knowledge  of  the  Law,"  who  were 
grieved  at  this  wanton  murder  of  the  saintly  Nazarite.  They 
were  determined  to  protect  such  citizens  from  the  insolence  of 
a  blood-stained  house,  and  they  laid  their  complaints  before 
Agrippa  II.  This  king  had  heard  the  defence  of  St.  Paul  be- 
fore Festus,  and  was  capable  of  taking  a  fairer  view  of  Chris- 
tianity than  that  which  was  deemed    politic  by  his  astute  and 


'  Acts  xxii.  12. 


350  TIIK    EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

unprincipled  father.  They  also  complained  to  the  new  Pro- 
curator, who  was  now  on  his  way  from  Alexandria  to  Jerusalem. 
The  consequence  was  that  Albinus  (a.d.  6;^)  wrote  to  Hanan 
a  stern  rebuke  for  his  illegal  violence,  and  Agrippa  II.  felt 
that  he  might,  without  danger  to  his  own  popularity,  expel 
him  from  the  High  Priesthood,  though  he  had  only  held  it  for 
three  months.'  We  can  see  from  this  brief  narrative  that  the 
crueltv  of  the  younger  Hanan  was  only  part  of  a  bold  plan  to 
restore  the  waning  influence  of  the  Sadducean  priesthood. 
Those  who,  by  informing  against  him,  defeated  his  purpose, 
and  drove  him' from  his  office,  were  evidently  Pharisees.'  The 
Pharisees  were  never  actuated  by  the  same  animosity  against 
the  Judaeo-Christians  as  the  Sadducees.  Judaic  Christianity 
leaned  to  the  views  of  Pharisaism.  Sadducees  like  the  Beni- 
Hanan  naturally  hated  it  on  this  ground,  and  all  the  more  be- 
cause the  many  Pharisees  who  had  by  this  time  embraced  the 
faith  were  believers  in  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  and  were 
therefore  extreme  opponents  of  the  very  negation  which  was 
most  characteristic  of  the  Sadducean  sect.  Hanan  is  perhaps 
the  proud  young  priest,  who,  on  reproaching  his  father  for 
conformity  to  Pharisaic  practices  while  he  had  lived  all  his 
life  in  the  profession  of  Sadduceism,  received  the  answer  that 
only  at  the  price  of  such  hypocrisy  could  their  priestly  posi- 
tion be  maintained  at  all.^  If  so,  we  see  that  he  was  exactly 
the  sort  of  person  who  would  have  taken  the  initiative  in  a 
Sadducean  conspiracy. 

Hegesippus  supplements  the  narrative  of  Josephus  by 
giving  a  more  detailed  account  of  the  martyr's  death."  He 
says  that  James  won  over  many  of  the  Jews  to  Christianity  by 
his  testimony  to  Jesus  as  being  the  Door  of  the  Sheepfold, 
the  Way  of  Life,  until  the  multitude  of  conversions  aroused, 
as  it  had  done  twenty-five  years  earlier,  the  angry  attention  of 
the  Scribes  and  Sanhedrists.  They  accordingly  sent  him  a  dep- 
utation from  their  "Seven  Sects"  to  ask  him,  "Who  is  the 
Door  of  Jesus?'"  He  answered,  "that  Jesus  was  the  Saviour;" 
and  b}'  this  testimony  he  again  won  so  many  converts  that  a 
tumult  arose,  from  the  fear  that  all  the  people  would  be  won 
over  to  look  for  the  coming  of  Christ.    Accordingly  they  once 

,        ^  ■  I^amnacus,  was  appointed  in  his  place,  but  was  soon  superseded  by  Joshua 

',    "  I'Oiight  the  ofTicc  by  an  enormous  bribe,  ofTered  by  his  wife,  Martha,  a 

***''^''  i-  •■'  Jos.  AnU.xx.g,^!. 

/'■'■/r.i  J.',,:.,,  c.  1  ;  f.cigcr,  Urschri/t,  112  ;  Derenbourg,  Palest.  104. 
...     »««^gcMppu<i  wrote,  he  tells  us,  when  Eleutherus  was  Bishop  of  Rome,   a.d.   174-1S9 
(Kuftcb.  IV.  a2>.  f  t  /t       y 

..'.''*'«  P^"»f  may  m.nn  "Which  is  the  d.)or  of  which  Te.sus  spoke?"  (John  .\.  7,  9),  or 
"Whai  m  the  l»oor  whuh  KndMo  Jesus?" 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER    OF   ST.    JAMES.  35 1 

more  sent  him  a  deputation,  acknowledging  his  "righteous- 
ness," and  the  reverence  with  which  they  regarded  him,  and 
the  strong  influence  which  he  held  over  the  people,  but  en- 
treating him  to  stand  upon  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple  on  the 
day  of  the  Passover  and  persuade  "all  the  tribes"  and  the 
Gentiles  "not  to  be  led  away  concerning  Jesus."  The  rest 
of  the  story  may  be  told  in  the  quaint  style  of  the  old  writer 
himself: — 

"The  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  then,  who  have  been  pre- 
viously mentioned,  set  James  on  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple, 
and  cried  to  him  and  said,  'J^i^t  one!  whom  we  ought  all  to 
obey,  since  the  people  is  wandering  after  Jesus  the  Crucified, 
tell  us.  Who  is  the  door  of  Jesus?'  And  he  answered  in  a 
loud  voice,'.  Why  do  ye  ask  me  again  about  Jesus  the  Son  of 
Man?  He  both  sits  in  the  heavens  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Mighty  Power,  and  He  will  come  on  the  clouds  of  heaven.* 
And  \vhen  many  had  been"  fully  assured,  and  were  glorifying 
God  at  the  witness  of  James,  and  saying,  'Hosanna  to  the 
Son  of  David!'  then  again  the  same  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
began  to  say  to  one  another,  'We  did  wrong  in  affording  such 
a  testimony  to  Jesus.  Come,  let  us  go  up  and  cast  him  down, 
that  they  may  be  afraid,  and  not  believe  him.'  And  they  cried 
out,  saying,  'Oh!  oh!  even  the  Just  has  gone  astray!'  and 
they  fulfilled  the  Scripture  written  in  Isaiali,  'Let  us  away 
with  the  Just,  for  he  is  inconvenient  to  us.'  (Is.  iii.  10?) 
Therefore  they  shall  eat  of  the  fruit  of  their  own  deeds.  They 
went  up,  therefore,  and  (lung  down  the  Just, 'and  said  to  one 
another,  'Let  us  stone  James  the  Just.'  And  they  began  to 
stone  him,  since  he  did  not  die  from  being  flung  down,  but 
turned  and  knelt  on  his  knees,  saying,  'I  entreat  Thee,  O 
Lord  God!  O  Father!  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what 
they  do.'  But  while  they  were  thus  stoning  him,  one  of  the 
Priests,  of  the  sons  of  Rechab,  a  son  of  the  Rechabites  to 
whom  Jeremiah  the  Prophet-bears  witness,  cried  out,  saying, 
'Cease!  what  are  ye  doing?  The  Righteous  One  is  praying 
for  you.'  But  one  of  them,  one  of  the  fullers,  lifting  up  his 
club  with  which  he  used  to  beat  out  clothes,  brought  it  down 
on  the  head  of  the  Righteous  One.  So  he  bore  witness;  and 
they  buried  him  on  the  spot,  beside  the  Sanctuary.'  He  was 
a  true  witness  to  Jews  and  Greeks  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ. 


1  Ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  23  (quoting  from  the  fifth  book  of  the  Hypomnemata).  See,  too, 
Epiphan.  Hacr.  ii.  i  (where  he  quotes  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus)  ;  Ixxvii.  13,  14  ;  Abiiias, 
Apost.  Hist.  vi.  15.  Kern's  objection  [Tubingen  Mag.,  1835)  to  the  genuineness  i.f  the  Epis- 
tle of  St.  James,  because  Hegesippus  does  not  happen  to  mention  it,  is  surely  insufficient. 


352  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Immediately  afterwards  Vespasian  besieged  them."  Euse- 
bius  quotes  Josephus  for  the  statement  that  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  fell  on  the  Jews  in  punishment  for  his  murder; 
but  he  exaggerates  the  remark  in  the  Antiquities^  unless  he  is 
quoting  from  passages  of  Josephus  no  longer  extant.'  The 
episcopal  chair  of  St.  James  was,  we  are  old,  long  preserved 
at  Jerusalem  as  a  relic. 

Such  is  the  story  of  Hegesippus,  mixed  up,  no  doubt,  with 
legendary  particulars,  and  consisting  in  part  of  a  cento  of 
Scripture  phrases,"'  but  bearing  some  marks  of  genuineness  in 
the  picture  it  presents  of  the  estimation  in  which  James  was 
held,  of  his  eminently  prayerful  character,  of  his  courage, 
holiness,  and  devotion  to  the  Law,  and  of  the  sympathy  which 
he  excited  among  those  who  like  himself  were  partial  Nazar- 
ites.  And  looking  at  his  whole  career  in  the  light  which  was 
thrown  upon  it  by  later  history,  we  cannot  but  see  how  merci- 
ful was  the  Providence  which  placed  him  in  that  sphere  of 
labour,  and  made  him  what  he  was.  If  there  was  any  voice 
to  which  even  a  remnant  of  Israel  would  listen,  it  was  the 
voice  of  James.  He  venerated  their  Law,  he  observed  their 
customs,  he  loved  their  nation,  he  attended  their  worship  with 
scrupulous  devotion.  There  are  traces  even  in  the  Talmud 
of  the  deep  influence  which  he  exercised.  There,  among  the 
chief  Minim,  or  ^'heretics" — which  is  the  ordinary  Talmudic 
name  for  Christians — we  constantly  hear  of  a  certain  Jacob 
[i.e.  James)  of  Kephar  Zekania,  who  works  supernatural  cures 
in  the  name  of  jesus  son  of  Pandera.  One  of  the  stories 
about  him  is  that  Ben  Dama,  nephew  of  Rabbi  Ishmael,  was 
bitten  by  a  serpent,  and  James  coming  to  him,  offered  to  cure 
him  after  the  fashion  of  the  Nazarenes.  Rabbi  Ishmael  for- 
bade any  recourse  to  such  methods.  "Suffer  me,"  said  Ben 
Dama,  "to  prove  from  the  Scripture  that  this  is  lawful;"  but 
before  his  proof  was  ready  he  died.  "Happy  Ben  Dama," 
•said  his  uncle,  "in  that  thy  soul  hath  departed  hence,  and 
that  thou  hast  not  broken  through  the  hedge  of  the  wise," 
quoting  Eccles.  x.  8,  "He  who  breaketh  through  a  hedge,  a 
serpent  shall  bite  him."'  Another  story  of  him  is  that  he  was 
met  by  Rabbi  Eliezer  in  the  street  of  Sepphoris,  and  gave  to 
the  Rabbi  a  Halacha,  or  legal  decision,  which  pleased  him, 
on  D^t.  xxui.   19.     But  when  Eliezer  repeated  this,  he  got 

T"scphus,  in  his  i8th  hook,  "openly  confesses  that  Jerusalem  had  been 
"IP  •"•"■ocr  of  James  the  Apostle."     Josephus.  in  Antt.  xx.  g,  §  i,  only 
r  offended  the  most  equitable  citiztns 
i  xl".'    V.I-  ^i*i-   l'''^"  "''•  "  '•  <""■*'•  "•  6  :  I-uke  xxiii.  34. 
Midra.h  Kohc'.cth,  i.  8  (m  WUnRche's  DiHioth.  KubbinLa,  p.  15). 


LIFE   AND    CHARACTER   OF   ST.    JAMES.  353 

into  trouble  by  being  aecused  of  sympathy  with  the  Christian 
heretics/  Whether  these  and  other  anecdotes  have  in  them 
any  truth  or  not,  they  at  least  show  the  importance  of  St. 
James's  position  in  the  traditional  recollections  of  the  Jews. 

It  was  one  of  the  wild  legends  of  the  Jews,  which  yet  hid 
beneath  it  a  meaning  even  deeper  than  they  imagined,  that 
before  the  city  fell  the  Shechinah  had  gone  to  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  and  for  three  years  had  pleaded  with  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  in  vain.  The  Shechinah,  the  Metatron,  the  Divine 
Son,  the  effulgence  of  God's  glory,  had  indeed  pleaded  and 
had  vanished;  but  in  the  teaching  of  St.  James  there  was  still 
left  the  echo  of  that  tender  patriotism  in  which  He  had  be- 
wailed the  obduracy  of  guilty  Jerusalem.  Yet  even  to  this 
human  voice  of  the  fellow-citizen  whom  they  reverenced,  and 
who  had  not  kindled  their  burning  hatred  by  any  denunciation 
of  the  things  wherein  they  trusted,  they  would  not  listen. 
When  they  murdered  the  just  observer  of  the  Law,  they  filled 
to  the  brim  the  cup  of  their  iniquity.  It  was  at  about  this  very 
time  that  a  strange  fanatic,  who  bore  the  common  name  of 
Jesus,  appeared  in  Jerusalem,  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
and  began  to  make  the  streets  resound  with  the  melancholy 
cry — 

"Woe  to  the  city!  woe  to  the  Temple!  A  voice  from  the 
east!  A  voice  from  the  west!  A  voice  from  the  four  winds! 
A  voice  against  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple!  A  voice  against 
bridegroom  and  bride!     A  voice  against  the  whole  people!" 

Annoyed  and  alarmed  by  his  cries,  the  people  complained 
of  him.  The  unresisting  offender  was  secured  and  brought 
before  the  Procurator  Albinus,  bat  he  would  answer  no  ques- 
tion; even  the  horrible  scourging  to  which  he  was  subjected, 
until  his  bones  were  laid  bare,  wrung  from  his  lips  no  other 
cry  than  "Woe,  woe  to  Jerusalem!"  Unable  to  extort  any 
answer  from  him,  they  released  him  as  a  monomaniac;  and 
every  year  for  seven  years,  at  the  great  yearly  feasts,  he  tra- 
versed the  city  with  his  wailing  cry,  answering  to  no  man 
either  bad  or  good,  but  whether  beaten  or  kindly  treated 
uttering  no  word  but  "Woe!"  At  last,  during  the  siege,  he 
suddenly  exclaimed,  "Woe,  woe,  to  me  also!"  and  a  stone 
from  a  Roman  catapult  laid  him  dead. 

The  blood  of  St.  James,  shed  by  priests  and  Zealots, 
stained  the  Temple  court  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  year  a.d.  63. 
Three  years  had  not  elapsed  before  the  marble  floor  of  the 

1  See  W' iinsche,  p.  14  ;  GrStz,  iv.  47  :  Derenbourg-,  Palest.  359.     The  chronological  diffi- 
culties go  for  nothing  in  the  looseness  of  the  Talmud  as  to  such  matters. 

21 


354  Tilt:   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Temple  swam  with  the  blood  of  more  than  eight  thousand 
Zealots,  who  stabbed  each  other  in  internecine  massacre. 
Hanan,  the  prime  mover  in  the  martyrdom,  perished  miser- 
ably. He  was  seized  by  the  Idumeans,  murdered,  and  his 
corpse  was  flung  out  naked  to  dogs  and  beasts/  Six  years 
had  not  elapsed  before  priests,  swollen  with  hunger,  were 
seen  madly  leaping  into  the  altar  flames.^  Seven  years  had 
barely  elapsed  before  city  and  Temple  sank  into  charred  and 
blood-stained  heaps,  and  the  place,  the  nation,  the  ritual  of 
Judaism  were  for  ever  swept  away. 

"Though  the  mills  of  God  grind  slowly,  yet  they  grind  exceedingly  small  ; 
Though  in  patience  long  He  waiteth,  yet  He  surely  grindeth  all." 


CHAPTER   XXI. 


CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    EPISTLE    OF    ST.   JAMES. 
TivecrOe  6k  Troirjral  \6yov. — Ja.   i.  22. 

Of  the  canonicity  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  there  can  hardly 
be  a  reasonable  doubt,  and  there  is  strong  ground  for  believing 
it  to  be  authentic.  It  is  true  that  Origen  is  the  first  who 
ascribes  it  to  St.  James,  and  he  only  speaks  of  it  as  an  Epistle 
"currently  attributed  to  him.  "^  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  though 
he  wrote  on  the  Catholic  Epistles,  does  not  appear  to  have 
known  it."  Tertullian,  from  his  silence,  seems  either  not  to 
have  known  it,  or  not  to  have  accepted  it  as  genuine.  It  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment.  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  even  in  the  pseudo-Clementines  it  is  not  directly  ap- 
pealed to.  It  is  classed  by  Eusebius  among  the  Antilego- 
niena,'  but  he  seems  himself  to  have  accepted  it.  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  rejected  it.  On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be 
little  doubt,  from  the  occurrence  of  parallels  to  its  phraseology, 


'  The  culojry  which  Tosephiis  pronounces  on  the  younger  Hanan  in  his  Jewish  War  (iv. 
5'  $  ?).  where  he  auributes  to  his  death  the  precipitation  oi  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem,  is  quite  in- 
consistent with  the  severe  remarks  which  he  appUes  to  him  in  the  Antiquities  (xx.  9,  §  i). 
Hut  when  he  hid  any  purpose  to  serve,  Josephus  was  not  in  the  least  to  be  trusted. 

'  Hcgcsippus  says  that  he  was  martyred  the  year  before  the  siege  of  Jerusaiem  ;  but  this 
does  not  airrcc  with  the  date  of  the  I'rocuratorship  of  Albizius,  and  the  deposition  from  the 
Pric»th<K>d  of  ihe  younger  Hanan  (Jos.  Aiitt.  xx.  9,  §  i). 

■  Orig.  /■'/  yoaun.  xix.  If  we  cinild  trust  the  translation  of  Rufinus  {e.g.,  Horn,  in  Gen. 
XXVI.  18),  in  i.ther  narts  of  his  commentaries  he  spoke  yf  it  as  St.  James's,  and  even  called  it 
"the  I)ivin':  Kpistle." 

*  Cassi(.d')rus  says  that  he  wrote  upon  it,  but  "  Jude"  ought  to  be  read  for  James  (see 
WcMcott  Oh  the  Canon,  p.  35^).  Eusebius  only  says  that  Clemens  in  his  Outlines  com- 
mented even  on  disputed  books  :  "  I  mean  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  rest  of  tlie  Catholic 
hpistlcs,  and  that  of  I5arnabas,  etc."  ■'•  i/o^euerat  (Euseb    ii.  23). 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     355 

that  it  was  favourably  known  to  Clemens  of  Rome,  Hermas, 
Irenseus,  and  Hippolytus.  Jerome  vindicated  its  genuineness 
against  the  opinion  that  it  was  forged  in  the  name  of  James.' 
It  is  quoted  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria;  and  it  has  the  im- 
portant evidence  of  the  Peshito  in  its  favour.  Thus,  the  Sy- 
rian Church  received  it  early,  though  it  was  not  till  the  fourth 
century  that  it  was  generally  accepted  by  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches.  Nor  was  it  till  a.d.  397  that  the  Council  of  Carth- 
age placed  it  in  the  Canon.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Jewish- 
Christian  tendencies  of  the  Epistle,  and  what  have  been  called 
its  Ebionising  opinions,  agree  so  thoroughly  with  all  that  we 
know  of  James  and  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  that  they  form 
a  very  powerful  argument  from  internal  evidence  in  favour  of 
its  being  a  genuine  work  of  the  "Bishop"  of  Jerusalem.  Sus- 
picion has  been  thrown  on  it  because  of  the  good  Greek  in 
which  it  is  written,  and  because  of  the  absence  of  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  Christianity."  On  the  first  difficulty  I  shall 
touch  later.  The  second  is  rather  a  proof  that  the  letter  is 
authentic,  because  otherwise,  on  this  ground,  and  on  the 
ground  of  its  apparent  contradiction  of  St.  Paul,  it  would 
never  have  conquered  the  dogmatic  prejudices  which  were  an 
obstacle  to  its  acceptance.  The  single  fact  that  it  was  known 
to  St.  Peter,  and  had  exercised  a  deep  influence  upon  him, 
is  enough  to  outweigh  any  deficiency  of  external  evidence.^ 

In  this  Epistle,  then,  St.  James  has  left  us  a  precious  heri- 
tage of  his  thoughts,  a  precious  manual  of  all  that  was  purest 
and  loftiest  in  Jewish  Christianity.  Having  passed  into  the 
Church  through  the  portals  of  the  Synagogue,  and  having  ex- 
ulted in  joyous  obedience  to  a  glorious  Law,"*  the  Hebraists 
could  not  believe  with  St.  Paul  that  the  Institutions  of  Sinai 
had  fulfilled  no  loftier  function  than  that  of  bringing  home  to 
the  human  heart  the  latent  consciousness  of  sin.  They  thought 
that  the  abrogation  of  Mosaism  would  give  a  perilous  licence 
to  sinful  passions.  St.  James  also  writes  as  one  of  those  who 
clung  fast  to  the  prerogatives  of  Israel,  and  could  not  per- 
suade themselves  that  the  coming  of  the  Jewish  Messiah,  so 
long  expected,  would  have  no  other  national  effect  than  to  de- 
prive them  of  every  exclusive  privilege,  and  place  them  on  the 
same  level  as  the  heathens  from  whom  they  had  so  grievously 
suffered.  Further  than  this,  his  letter  shows  some  a!arm  lest 
a  subjective  dogmatism  should  usurp  the  place  of  a  practical 

1  De  Virr.  Illustr.  2.     It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  Jerome's  remark  is  somewhat 
vacillating.  '-^  See  Davidson's  In  trod.  i.  303. 

3  See  supra,  p.  85.  'i  Ps.  cxix.  J>assim, 


356  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

activity,  and  lest  phrases  about  faith  should  be  accepted  as  an 
excuse,'if  not  for  Antinomian  licence,  at  least  for  dreamy  in- 
difference to  the  duties  of  daily  life.  St.  James  keenly  dreaded 
a  falling  asunder  of  knowledge  and  action.'  His  letter  might 
seem  at'^first  sight  to  be  the  most  direct  antithesis  to  the  Epis- 
tles of  St.  Pauf  to  the  Galatians  and  the  Romans,  and  to  reach 
no  higher  standpoint  than  that  of  an  idealised  Judaism  which 
is  deficient  in  the  specific  elements  of  Christianity.  It  does 
not  even  mention  the  word  Gospel.  The  name  of  Jesus  oc- 
curs in  it  but  twice.  Nothing  is  said  in  it  of  the  work  of  Re- 
demption. Even  the  rules  of  morality  are  enforced  without 
anv  appeal  to  those  specific  Christian  motives  which  give  to 
Christian  morality  its  glow  and  enthusiasm,  and  which  occur 
so  repeatedly  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  and  St. 
J  ohn .  *  'Be  ye  doers  of  the  word, ' '  he  says,  ' '  not  hearers  only. ' ' ^ 
**  Who  is  wise  among  you2  Let  him  show  forth  his  works  with 
tneckness  of  wisdom.''"^  ''Adulterers  a  fid  adulteresses,  knoiu  ye 
not  that  the  friendship  of  the  world  is  enmity  with  God? '  "*  "  Take 
the  prophets,  my  brethren,  as  an  example  of  suffering  and  of  pa- 
tienee.  "*  ''  Go  to  now,  ye  rieh,  weep  and  howl. "®  Is  it  possible 
to  deny  that  there  is  a  difference  between  the  tone  of  these 
appeals  and  such  as  ''  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ.''"'  ""But 
I  say  walk  in  the  Spirit.''^  ''The  love  of  Christ  constraifteth 
//J.  "*  "  We  were  bui'ied  with  Him  by  baptism  unto  death  .  .  . 
so  let  us  also  walk  in  newness  of  life.  ""*  "As  he  who  called  you 
is  holy,  so  become  ye  holy.''^^  "This  is  the  message  which  ye 
heard  from  the  beginning,  that  we  love  one  another. '''^'^  It  was 
the  presence  of  such  peculiarities  which  made  Luther  take  up 
his  hasty,  scornful,  and  superficial  view  of  the  Epistle.  "On 
that  account,"  he  said,  "the  Epistle  of  James,  compared  with 
them  (the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul),  is  a  veritable  straw-Epistle 
(rccht  strohern),  for  it  lacks  all  Evangelical  character."'^ 
"This  Epistle  of  James,  although  rejected  by  the  ancients,'* 
I  praise  and  esteem  good  withal,  because  it  setteth  not  forth 
any  doctrine  of  man But  to  give  my  opinion,  yet  with- 
out the  prejudice  of  any  one,  I  count  it  to  be  no  Apostle's 
writing,  and  this  is  my  reason:  first,  because,  contrary  to  St. 
Paul's  writings  and  all  other  Scriptures,  it  puts  righteousness  in 
works,"  on  which  account  he  thinks  that  its  author  was  merely 
"some  good,  pious  man,"  though  in  other  places  he  seems  to 


>  WicMngcr,  F.inl.  p.  4a.  9  i.  22.  3  iii.  13.  4  iv.  4.  s  v.  5. 

*.'''  \-       ,     '  ^ial-  >>•  20.  "  Oal.  V.  16.  »  2  Cor.  v.  14.  i"  Rom.  vi.  4. 

I!  -V,  •  '^  h '5- ,       ,.''''  J"''"  '"•  »«•  "  Preface  to  New  Testament  of  1524,  p.  105. 

I  hi»  i»  hardly  a  fair  account  of  Uic  history  of  the  Kpislle  and  its  reception  into  the  Canon. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     357 

think  that  it  was  written  by  James  the  son  of  Zebedee.'  It 
was,  perhaps,  hardly  strange  that  Luther,  who  did  not  possess 
the  cUie  by  which  alone-  the  apparent  contradictions  to  St. 
Paul  could  be  explained,  should  have  arrived  at  this  opinion. 
To  him  the  lett-er  seemed  to  be  in  direct  antagonism  to  the 
truth  which  had  wrought  his  own  conversion,  and  which  be- 
came powerful  in  his  hands  for  the  overthrow  of  sacerdotal 
usurpation  and  the  revival  of  religious  faith.  But  this  un- 
favourable opinion  of  the  Epistle  lingered  on.  It  is  found  in 
the  Magdeburg  centuriators  and  in  Strobel,  who  said  that, 
"no  matter  in  what  sense* we  take  the  Epistle,  it  is  always  in 
conflict  with  the  remaining  parts  of  Holy  Writ."  On  similar 
grounds  Erasmus,  Cajetan,  Grotius,  and  Wetstein  hesitated  to 
accept  it.*^  Such  views  are  untenable,  because  they  are  one- 
sided. We  shall  consider  afterwards  the  alleged  polemic 
against  St.  Paul;  and  in  judging  of  the  Epistle  generally  we 
must  bear  in  mind  its  avowedly  practical  character,  and  the 
entire  training  of  the  writer  and  of  those  to  whom  it  was  ad- 
dressed. The  purpose  for  which  it  was  written  was  to  en- 
courage the  Jewish  Christians  to  the  endurance  of  trial  by 
stirring  them  up  to  a  brighter  energy  of  holy  living.  And  in 
doing  this  he  neither  urges  a  slavish  obedience  nor  a  terrified 
anxiety.  If  he  does  not  dwell,  as  assuredly  he  does  not,  on 
the  specific  Christian  motives,  he  does  not  at  any  rate  put  in 
their  place  a  ceremonial  righteousness.  His  ideals  are  the 
ideals  of  truth  and  wisdom,  not  of  accurate  legality.  The 
Law  which  he  has  in  view  is  not  the  threatful  Law  of  Moses, 
which  gendereth  to  bondage,  but  the  royal  Law,  the  perfect 
Law  of  liberty,  the  Law  as  it  was  set  forth  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  He  is  the  representative,  not  of  Judaism,  but  of 
Christian  Judaism— that  is,  of  Judaism  in  its  transformation 
and  transfiguration.  A  book  may  be  in  the  highest  sense 
Christian  and  religious  without  using  the  formulas  of  religion 

1  In  1S19,  he  calls  it  "wholly  inferior  to  the  Apostolic  majesty "  (in  the  seventh  Thesis 
against  Eck) ;  in  1520,  "unworthy  of  an  Apostolic  spirit"  {De  Captiv.  Babylon.').  In  the 
Postills  he  savs  it  was  written  by  no  Apostle,  and  is  "  nowhere  fully  conformalMe  to  the  true 
Apostolic  character  and  manner,  and  to  pure  doctrine."  In  his  preface  to  the  Epistle,  in  1522 
\Werke,  xiv.  148),  he  speaks  almost  contemptuously.  "He"  (St.  James),  he  says,  "has 
aimed  to  refute  those  who  relied  on  faith  without  works,  and  is  too  ivcak  for  his  task  in 
viind,  widcrstaiidiitg^  and  words,  mutilates  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  directly  [stracks)  con- 
tradicts Paul  and  all  Scripture,  seeking  to  accomplish  by  enforcing;  the  law  what  the  Apostles 
successfully  effect  by  love.  Therefore,  I  will  not  place  his  Epistle  in  my  liible  among  the 
proper  leading  books."  Nor  did  he  ever,  as  is  sometimes  as.serted,  retract  these  opinions. 
His  Table  Talk  shows  that  he  held  them  to  the  last,  and  considered  St.  James  irreconcilable 
with  St.  Paul  {Colloq.  Ixix.  4).  See  the  quotation,  in/ra,-p.  409.  Archdeacon  Hare  (.Uission 
of  the  Comforter,  ii.  815)  rightly  says  that  "Luther's  words  cannot  always  be  weighed  m 
jewellers'  scales."  .      ,  ,    ^     . , 

2  The  objections  of  Schleiermacher,  De  Wette,  Reuss,  Baur,  Schweglcr,  Ritschl,  David- 
son, etc.,  are  based  on  critical  and  other  grounds. 


358  Till-:    KAKLV    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

and  Christianity.  The  Book  of  Esther  is  a  Sacred  book,  a 
book  of  the  inspired  Canon,  and  a  book  justly  valued,  though 
it  does  not  so  much  as  mention  the  name  of  God.  The  bot- 
tom of  the  ocean  is  always  presupposed  as  existent  though  it 
be  neither  visible  nor  alluded  to.  And,  as  we  shall  see  later 
on,  there  are  passages  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  which  in- 
volve the  deepest  truths  of  that  Christian  faith  of  which  he 
avows  himself  a  humble  follower,  although  it  was  not  his  im- 
mediate object  to  develop  the  dogmatic  side  of  Christianity  at 
all.  If  some  of  the  weightiest  Christian  doctrines  are  not 
touched  upon,  there  are,  on  the  other  hand,  more  references 
to  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  this  Epistle  than  in  all  the  others 
put  together.' 

If  we  could  be  certain  of  the  date  of  the  Epistle,  and  of 
the  characters  whom  St.  James  had  chiefly  in  view,  some  light 
would  doubtless  be  thrown  on  these  peculiarities.  But  on 
these  subjects  we  are  unfortunately  in  doubt.  Amid  the  differ- 
ing opinions  respecting  the  date,  I  side  with  those  who  look 
upon  the  Epistle  as  one  of  the  later,  not  as  perhaps  the  ear- 
liest, in  the  Canon.  One  or  two  facts  seem  to  point  in  this 
direction.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Epistle  could  not  have  been 
written  after  the  year  a.d.  6;^,  because  in  that  year  St.  James 
was  martyred.  On  the  other  hand,  the  condition  and  wide  dis- 
semination of  the  Churches  to  which  it  is  addressed;  the  pre- 
valence of  the  ;ia/Ne  Christ  instead  of  the  tif/e  "the  Christ";^ 
the  growth  of  respect  for  persons  as  shown  in  distinction  of 
scats;  the  sense  of  delay  in  the  Second  Coming,^  and  other 
circumstances,  make  it  necessary  to  assume  that  many  years 
had  elapsed  since  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  Further,  it  seems 
probable  that  some  of  St.  James's  allusions  may  find  their  ex- 
l)lanation  in  a  state  of  political  excitement,  caused  by  hopes 
and  fears  which,  perhaps,  within  a  year  or  two  of  the  time 
when  it  was  written,  broke  out  in  the  wild  scenes  of  the  Jew- 
ish revolt.  Lastly,  it  seems  impossible  to  deny  that  although 
St.  James  may  have  written  his  arguments  about  faith  and 
works'  without  having  read  what  had  been  written  on  the  same 
subject  by  St.  Paul,''  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  still 


Oxenham). 

*  ii.  21-26. 


>  See  Daihnger,  First  Age  of  the  Church,  p.  107  (tr. 

;V7-  «v.  7,8.  '^ 

\  „  ,K  K  "".i  "cccssary  to  assume  in  consequence  that  "  Apostolical  Epistles  were  transcribed 
t.v  the  hundred  and  circulated  broadcast ; "  or  that  "copies  of  whaV  was  written  for  Rome 
'  .niritia  w.nild  be  at  once  despatched  by  a  special  courier  to  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem" 
•  ,'  ^vt^'u  !  \burch  of  Jerusalem  was  kept  well  acquainted  with  the  movements 
I  .  "  r  ,»1  AC.  f\K  •''"^.  ,  ""■■  **»ssovcr  pilgrims  from  Asia  Minor  mi-ht  have  informed 
l:^^\i\  M       .       *"  Apostle  s  arguments,  and  of  some  of  his  more  striking  expressions, 

cvcniUie  could  not  procure  a  copy  of  a  complete  Knistle 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  TIIK  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     359 

his  language  finds  its  most  reasonable  explanation  in  the  sup- 
position that  he  is  striving  to  remove  the  dangerous  inferences 
to  which  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  l)y  faith  was  liable 
when  it  was  wrested  by  the  unlearned  and  the  ignorant.'  If 
so,  the  Epistle  cannot  have  been  written  more  than  a  year  or 
two  before  St.  James's  death,  since  the  date  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians  is  a.d.  57,  and  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans A.D.  58.  It  has  been  urged  against  this  conclusion  that 
if  it  had  been  written  later  than  the  so-called  "Council  of  Jer- 
usalem" in  A.L>.  50,  it  must  have  contained  references  to  the 
great  dispute  about  the  obligations  of  circumcision.  But  the 
circumcision  question,  fiercely  as  it  was  debated  at  the  time, 
was  speedily  forgotten;  and  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  St. 
James  is  writing  exclusively  to  Jews.  Again,  it  has  been 
urged  that  the  trials  to  which  he  alludes  must  have  been  the 
persecutions  at  Jerusalem,  in  which  Saul  and  Herod  Agrippa 
I.  were  respectively  the  chief  movers.  But  persecution  in  one 
form  or  other  was  the  chronic  trial  of  Jewish  as  well  as  of 
other  Christians.  To  refer  to  the  existence  of  deep  poverty 
as  a  sign  that  the  Epistle  was  written  about  the  time  of  the 
general  famine  of  a.d.  44  is  to  rely  on  a  very  shadowy  argu- 
ment, since  famines  at  this  period  were  by  no  means  unfre- 
quent,  and  poverty  was  the  permanent  condition  of  the  saints 
at  Jerusalem.  I  therefore  disagree  with  the  views  of  Neander, 
Alford,  and  Dr.  Plumptre,  who  argue  for  the  early  date;  and 
I  agree  with  those  of  De  Wette,  Bishop  Wordsworth,  and 
many  others,  who  fix  the  date  of  the  Epistle  about  the  year 
A.D.  61.' 

If,  however,  the  date  of  the  Epistle  be  uncertain,  we  have 
no  uncertainty  about  the  place  where  it  was  written.  That  is 
undeniably  Jerusalem.  When  once  settled  in  that  city,  St. 
James,  with  the  natural  stationariness  of  the  Oriental,  seems 
never  to  have  left  it.  Its  Temple  and  ritual  would  have  had 
for  him  a  strong  attraction.  The  notion  of  writing  the  Epistle 
may  have  partly  originated  from  the  circumstance  that  the 
Jewish  high  priest  sent  missives  from  the  Holy  City,  which 
were  received  with   profound  respect  throughout  the  length 

1  Baur  says  (Ck.  Hist.  p.  128),  "  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  the  Epistle  of  James  pre- 
supposes the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification."  He  admits  that  "  it  may  not  be  aimed  directly 
against  the  Apostle  himself,"  but  says  that,  if  so,  "its  tendency  is  distinctly  anti-Pauline." 
Nevertheless,  both  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  might,  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were  alone  in- 
tended, have  interchanged  each  other's  apparently  antagonistic  formula:.  See  infra,  pp. 
409-413. 

2  E\isebius  (//.  E.  ii.  23  :  iii.  11)  gives  a.d.  6933  the  date  of  St.  James's  death,  apparently 
because  Hegesippus  said  that  the  siege  happened  "  iiniiiedintely  afterwards.'  Hut  if  the 
narrative  of  Josephus  is  correct,  .St.  James  ould  not  have  been  killed  later  than  a.h.  63. 
This  is  the  date  given  by  Eusebius  in  his  Chronicou. 


360  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  breadth  of  the  Dispersion.  Similarly,  the  first  bishop  of 
the  metropolis  of  Christianity  was  one  to  whom  every  Jewish 
Church  might  naturally  look  for  advice  and  consolation.  The 
physical  allusions  in  the  Epistle  to  oil,  and  wine,  and  figs,  to 
salt  and  bitter  springs,  to  the  Kauson,  or  burning  wind  of 
Palestine,  and,  above  all,  to  the  former  and  the  latter  rain, 
show  that  the  letter  was  despatched  from  Jerusalem.  Some 
have  supposed  that  it  was  written  at  Joppa;  but  this  is  only  a 
precarious  inference  from  the  allusion  to  the  life  of  the  shore 
and  the  traffic  in  the  harbour,  the  fish  and  the  wonders  of  the 
sea.*  There  can,  at  any  rate,  be  no  doubt  that  it  emanated 
from  Palestine. 

In  this  Palestinian  origin  I  see  an  explanation  of  some  of 
the  phenomena  of  the  Epistle.  We  see,  for  instance,  why  it 
is  that  St.  James  seems  to  be  speaking  sometimes  to  Jews  and 
sometimes  to  Christians,  sometimes  to  all  the  Churches  of  the 
Dispersion  and  sometimes  almost  exclusively  to  the  Churches 
of  Judaea.  The  difficulty  vanishes  when  we  remember  the 
position  of  the  writer.  He  is  addressing  "the  Twelve  Tribes 
of  the  Dispersion."  It  was  a  sufficiently  wide  range — wider 
than  that  of  any  one  of  the  Epistles.  It  included  Parthians, 
and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  dwellers  in  Cappadocia,  Galatia, 
Pontus,  Asia,  Phrygia,  Pamphylia,  Egypt,  the  parts  of  Libya 
about  Cyrene,  strangers  at  Rome,  Cretes  and  Arabians,  Jews 
and  proselytes.*  But  of  the  varying  conditions  of  these  widely- 
scattered  communities  he  could  know  almost  nothing.  He 
could  have  no  information  about  them  except  such  as  he  might 
now  and  then  derive  from  the  general  talk  of  some  Passover 
pilgrim.  He  addresses  them,  indeed,  as  a  "Christian  high 
priest  wearing  the  golden  mitre"  might  have  done,  or  as  a 
sort  of  ideal  Resh  Galutlia^  or  "Prince  of  the  Captivity,"  might 
have  addressed  his  fellow-countrymen  in  later  days."*  But  he 
could  only  speak  on  topics  which  he  might  infer  to  be  neces- 
sary because  he  saw  that  they  were  necessary  for  the  Syrian 
Churches,  with  whose  trials  and  temptations  he  had  an  exclu- 
sive familiarity.  His  remarks,  for  instance,  about  the  conduct 
of  the  rich,  and  the  bearing  of  the  poor  towards  them,  have 
created  the  greatest  perplexity.  These  rich  men,  whose  arro- 
gance is  described  as  so  outrageous,  were  they  Jews,  Chris- 

»  James  i.  6 ;  iii.  4  ;  iv.  11  (Hausrath,  N.  Test.  Zeitg.  i,  §  5). 

«  Act*  ii.  9-12.  The  reader  will  find  a  sketch  of  the  character  cf  the  Jewish  Dispersion, 
and  of  the  events  wliich  led  to  it,  in  my  Life  0/ St.  Paul,  i.  pp.  115-125. 

•  'Ihc  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  in  I'.abyl.ju  were  called  "  the  Gola,"  or  "  Deportation,"  and 
Ihcy  enjoyed  a  sort  of  independence  under  a  rnlcr  of  their  own  choice  known  as  the  Resh 
CalUtha.     See  on  his  office,  Ethcridgc,  Hcbr.  Lit.  151,  j,v/. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     36 1 

tians,  or  Gentiles?  I  think  that  I  find  an  explanation  of  his 
allusions  in  conduct  which  he  saw  daily  taking  place  under  his 
own  eyes.  The  Jewish  Church  ^it  Jerusalem  was  at  that  time 
governed  by  a  clique  of  aristocratic  Sadducees.  They  were 
men  of  immense  wealth,  which  they  increased  by  violent  and 
dishonest  exactions.  Profoundly  hated  by  the  people,  they 
were  yet  kept  secure  in  their  positions  by  the  close  under- 
standing which  they  usually  preserved  with  the  Herods  and 
the  Romans.  Outwardly,  therefore,  they  were  treated  with 
abject  reverence,  and  in  spite  of  the  curses,  not  loud  but  deep, 
which  were  secretly  uttered  against  them,  and  which  were 
soon  to  burst  in  vengeance  upon  their  heads,  they  were  able  to 
exercise  an  almost  uncontrolled  authority.  When  we  read 
side  by  side  the  denunciations  hurled  by  St.  James  against  the 
tyrannous  greed  and  cruel  insolence  of  the  rich,  and  the  eight- 
fold and  thrice-repeated  curse  of  the  Talmud'  against  the 
blood-stained  and  worldly  hierarchs  who  disgraced  the  mitre 
of  Aaron,  it  will  be  seen,  I  think,  that  these  passages  of  the 
Epistle  sprang,  at  least  in  part,  from  the  indignation  with 
which  the  Christian  bishop  had  witnessed  the  conduct  of  the 
detested  Boethuism  and  Beni-Hanan.  To  their  vengeance  he 
at  last  succumbed,  and  under  their  avarice  and  worldlinessthe 
Jews  of  that  day  vainly  struggled.     St.  James  says: — 

"  Do  not  rich  men  oppress  you,  and  draw  you  before  the  judgment   seats  ? 
Do  they  not  blaspheme  that  worthy  name  by  the  which  ye  are  called  ?  "  * 

And  again — 

"Go  to  now,  ye  rich  men  ;   weep  and  howl  for  the  miseries  that  shall  come 
upon  you.     .     .     .     Behold  the  hire  of  the  labourers  which  have  reaped  down 

your  lields,  which  is   of  you   kept  back  by  fraud,  cricth Ye  have 

lived  in  pleasure  in  the  earth,  and  been  wanton  ;  ye  have  nourished  your  hearts 
as  in  a  day  of  slaughter  ;  ye  have  condemned  and  killed  the  just,  and  he  doth 
not  resist  you."  ^ 

It  is  obvious  that  these  remarks  could  not  apply  to  the 
treatment  of  the  poor  by  the  rich  throughout  all  the  Ghettos 
and  Christian  communities  of  the  world.  In  the  infant 
Churches,  during  the  whole  of  the  first  century,  there  were 
"not  many  rich.""*  The  few  wealthy  and  noble  Gentiles  who 
were  converted  were  so  far  from  being  able  to  wield  such  a 
tyranny  as  St.  James  describes,  that,  in  the  gatherings  of  the 
converts,  they  might  be  under  the  spiritual  supervision  of 
presbyters  and  "bishops"   who  occupied  no  higher  earthly 


1  Pesachiin,  57,  a  ;  Tosefta  Menachoth  ;  Dcrcnbourg,  Palest.  233  ;  Geiq;er,  Ursc/iri/f, 
3.  ••^  Ja.  ii.  6,  7.  ^  v.  1-6.  ''  i  Cor.  1.  26. 


362  THE    EAULV    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

rank  than  that  of  slaves.  Moreover,  no  Christian  could  have 
dared  to  "blaspheme" — that  is,  to  speak  injuriously  of  the 
name  of  "Christian"  or  of  "Christ."  But  St.  James  is  not 
tliinking  exclusively  of  Christian  communities.  He  is  writing 
of  things  which  were  on  the  horizon  of  his  daily  life.  Read 
what  the  Talmudists  say  of  the  priestly  families  by  which  he 
was  surrounded,  and  his  allusions  at  once  become  explicable. 
For  thus  in  the  tract  Yoma  (f.  9,  a)  we  find: — 

"What  is  meant  by  Ps.  x.  27,  'The  fear  of  the  Lord  pro- 
longeth  days,  but  the  years  of  the  wicked  shall  be  shortened'.? 
'i'he  first  clause  alludes  to  the  410  years  of  the  first  Temple, 
during  which  period  there  were  but  eighteen  high  priests. 
But  "the years  of  the  wicked  shall  be  shortetud'  is  illustrated  by 
the  fact  that  during  the  426  years  of  the  second  Temple  there 
were  more  than  300  high  priests  in  succession.  So  that,  de- 
ducting the  forty  years  of  Simon  the  Righteous,  and  the  eighty 
of  Rabbi  Jochanan,  and  the  ten  of  Ishmael  Ben  Phabi,  it  is 
evident  that  not  one  of  the  remaining  high  priests  lived  to 
hold  office  for  a  whole  year."^  The  supposed  fact  is  unhis- 
torical,  but  the  remark  shows  in  what  low  estimation  these 
later  hierarchs  were  held. 

Again,  in  the  tract  Pesachim  (57,  «)  we  find  one  of  several 
repetitions  of  the  famous  malediction  on  those  priestly  fami- 
lies;— 

*'  Woe  unto  the  family  of  Boethus, 

Woe  to  their  bludgeons  ! 
Woe  to  the  house  of  Hanan, 

Woe  to  their  viper  hissings  ! 
Woe  to  the  family  of  Canthera, 

Woe  to  their  libels  ! 
Woe  to  the  family  of  Ishmael  Ben-Phabi, 

Woe  to  their  blows  with  the  fist ! 

"  They  are  themselves  chief  priests,  their  sons  are  treasurers,  their  sons-in- 
law  captains  ol  the  Temple,  and  their  servants  strike  the  people  with  their 
staves," 

Again,  we  are  told  that  the  Vestibule  of  the  Temple  ut- 
tered four  cries— "Depart  hence,  sons  of  Eli,  who  defile  the 
Temple  of  the  Eternal!  Depart,  Issachar  of  Kephar  Barkai', 
who  only  carest  for  self,  and  profanest  the  victims  consecrated 
to  Heaven!"  And  again:  "Open,  ye  gates,  let  Ishmael  Ben 
Phabi  enter,  the  disciple  of  Phinehas  (son  of  Eli),  to  do  the 
duties  of  high  priest;  open,  let  John,  son  of  Nebedi^us,  enter, 
the  disciple  of  gluttons,  to  gorge  himself  with  victims."' 

>  Hcrshon,  Talm.  Miscell.  p.  107.     All  insolent  priests  were  supposed  to  be  descended 
from  i;.i»hur,  the  son  of  Immcr.     Kiddushin,  f.  70  />.  (id.  p.  244) 
»  l'e»achini,  /.  < .,  :uid  Kcriihoth,  28.  u  '         ^       f     '♦'♦'• 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     363 

Tales  of  these  priests — their  hixnry,  their  gluttony,  their 
simony,  their  avarice,  their  atheism — long  lingered  in  tiie 
hearts  of  the  people.  They  told  how  this  Issachar,  in  his  fas- 
tidious insolence,  had  had  silk  gloves  made  to  prevent  the 
soiling  of  his  hands  while  he  sacrificed;  of  the  calves  which 
John,  son  of  Nebedasus,  had  devoured,  and  the  tuns  of  wine 
which  he  had  drunk;  how  Martha,  daughter  of  Boethus,  had 
bought  the  priesthood  for  her  husband  Joshua,  son  of  Gamala, 
for  two  bushels  of  gold  denarii,  and  had  carpets  spread  from 
her  house  to  the  Temple  when  she  went  to  see  him  sacrifice; 
how  the  house  of  Hanan  deliberately  raised  the  price  of  doves, 
in  order  to  make  gain  out  of  the  poor,  till  they  were  liberated 
from  this  tyranny  by  Gamaliel,  the  grandson  of  Hillel;  how 
Eliezer  Ben  Charsom  went  to  the  Temple  in  a  robe  which  had 
cost  20,000  mince,  and  which  was  so  transparent  that  the  other 
priests  forbade  him  to  wear  it.'  Even  Josephus  bears  witness 
to  the  ruthless  extortion  and  cruelty  with  which  they  defrauded 
the  inferior  priests  of  their  dues  until  they  were  almost  re- 
duced to  the  verge  of  starvation.'"^  In  the  section  which  fol- 
lows his  account  of  the  murder  of  James,  he  says  that  the 
greedy  procurator  Albinus  cultivated  the  friendship  of  Joshua, 
the  high  priest,  and  the  other  chief  priests,  and  joined  with 
them  in  robbing  the  threshing-floors  by  violence,  and  that  for 
this  reason  some  of  the  priests  died  fl!»om  inability  to  recover 
the  tithes  which  were  their  sole  means  of  sustenance. 

But,  while  he  thus  alluded  to  the  state  of  things  in  Jerusa- 
lem, there  can  be  no  doubt  that  St.  James  mainly  intended  to 
address  Christians.  Otherwise  he  would  have  added  some 
explanation  of  his  simple  title,  **J^"^^s,  a  servant  of  God  and 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."^  Nor  could  he  otherwise  have 
said,  "My  brethren,  have  not  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Lord  of  Glory,  with  respect  of  persons;"*  nor 
again,  "Be  patient,  therefore,  brethren,  unto  the  coming  of 
the  Lord.'"  How  is  it,  then,  that  the  Epistle  contains  none 
of  the  rich  and  advanced  Christology  of  many  other  Epistles? 
that  the  allusions  to  specific  Christian  doctrine  and  motive  are 
so  rare?  How  is  it  that  the  word  "gospel"  does  not  once  oc- 
cur in  it?  that  Christianity  is  still  viewed  under  the  aspect  of 

1  Yoma,  35,  b.  See  Raphall,  Hist,  of  Jews,  ii.  370  ;  Gratz,  Gcsch.  der  Juden,  iii.  321  ; 
Derenbourg,  Palest,  p.  233,  seqq..,  and  my  Lt/e  of  Christ,  ii.  33^^342,  where  the  original 
references  are  given. 

2  Jos.  Aiitt.  XX.  8,  §  8  ;  9.  §  2.  3  i.  i.  .        "  'i-  i- 

5  V.  7.  See  other  distinctively  Christian  allusions  in  i.  18  :  '"  Of  His  own  will  begat  He  us 
by  the  word  of  truth  :  "  ii.  7  :  "'  Do  they  not  blaspheme  that  worthy  name  by  which  ye  are 
called  ?"  V.  6  :  "  Vc  condenmed  and  killed  the  Just ;  "  v.  14  :  "  Anointing  him  with  oil  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord." 


364  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Law,  though  truly  of  an  idealised  and  royal  Law?  that  the 
general  tone  of  appeal  is  much  more  like  that  of  John  the 
Baptist  than  that  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  John?  How 
is  it  that  next  to  the  moral  parts  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
St.  lames  is  most  frequent  in  his  references  to  books  of  apo- 
cryphal wisdom,  written  by  unconverted  Jews?  How  is  it  that 
there  are  whole  sections  which  might  have  been  almost  written 
by  an  Epictetus  or  a  Marcus  Aurelius?  I  think  that  the  reason, 
and  the  only  reason,  which  can  be  given,  is  that  while  he  is 
icritifii^  in  the  first  instance  to  Christians,  he  is  thinking  to  a 
great  extent  of  Jews.  The  Christians  were  few,  the  Jews 
many.  He  has  begun  by  saying  that  he  is  writing  to  the 
Twelve  Tribes  of  the  Dispersion,  and  he  meant  his  letter  to 
be  delivered  primarily  to  the  Christians  among  them.  But 
the  Christians  whom  he  has  in  view  were  also  Jews.  He  does 
not  even  allude  to  the  Gentiles.  The  converts  whom  he  ad- 
dresses had  never  thought  of  deserting  the  ceremonies,  or 
abandoning  what  they  imagined  to  be  the  exclusive  privileges 
of  the  chosen  seed.'  And  he  was  himself  a  Jew,  living  among 
Jews,  and  living  in  all  respects  as  a  Jew  of  the  strictest  ortho- 
doxy, reverenced  even  by  many  who  regarded  his  belief  in 
Christ  as  a  mere  aberration— a  mere  excrescence  on  his  Judaic 
devotion.  It  was  Irom  Jews,  not  from  Christians, — it  was  be- 
cause of  accuracy  in  Jewish  observances,  not  for  strictness  of 
Christian  morality, — that  he  had  received  the  surname  of  "the 
Just."  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that,  alike  amid  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  the  distinction  between  the  Jew  and  the  Christian 
was  infinitely  less  wide  in  the  first  generation  after  Christ's 
death  than  it  afterwards  became.  St.  Paul,  even  after  he  had 
written  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  did  not 
hesitate  to  exclaim  before  the  assembled  Sanhedrin,  ' '  Brethren, 
1  am  a  Pharisee,  a  son  of  Pharisees,"  and  to  reduce  the  whole 
(juestion  between  him  and  them  to  a  question  of  believing  in 
the  Resurrection.  As  a  Nazarite,  as  an  heir  of  David,  as 
having  priestly  blood  in  his  veins,  as  one  whose  faithfulness 
was  known  to  all  the  dwellers  in  Jerusalem,  and  to  all  who 
visited  it,  as  a  Jew  wo  walked  in  all  the  commandments  and 
ordinances  of  the  Law  blameless,  James  might  well  consider 
It  his  duty  to  address  words  of  warning  and  exhortation,  pri- 
marily indeed  to  the  Christian  Churches  of  Judc-ea,  but  through 
them  to  all  his  countrymen.     To  him  the  Church  is  still  not 


«,k  *  ^u  ^^^^  obf<-TVcd  the  same  plicnomcna  of  a  sort  of  dual  consciousness  as  to  the  readers 
ivhom  he  IS  addressing  in  St.  Paul's  Kpistlc  to  the  Romans.  Sec  Life  aiui  Work  0/ St. 
I  oui,  11.  168,  lOy,  -^ 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     365 

only  the  Ecclesia  (v,  14),  but  the  Synagogue  (ii.  2)— a  word 
which  even  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  seems 
purposely  to  avoid,  but  \vhich  was  used  exclusively  by  the 
Ebionites.'  When  alluding  to  the  object  of  faith,  he  speaks 
not  of  Christ,  but  of  "One  God"  (ii.  19).  He  warns  against 
swearing  by  the  heaven  and  by  the  earth  (v.  12),  which  we 
know  from  the  Gospels  (Matt.  v.  :i^i)  to  have  been  common 
formulae  of  Jewish  adjuration.  He  saw  in  Jews  the  catechu- 
mens of  Christianity,  and  in  Christians  the  ideal  Jews.  The 
fact  is,  that  alike  in  the  real  and  in  the  traditional  St.  James 
we  see  the  traces  of  views  which  distinguished  three  parties  of 
Jewish  Christians  in  the  first  century,  and  which  continued  to 
exist  in  three  classes  of  Jewish  Christians  in  the  second.  Like 
St.  Paul  and  like  the  Nazarenes,  he  did  not  insist  on  the  ob- 
servance of  Mosaism  by  the  Gentiles;  yet,  like  the  milder 
Ebionites,  he  appears  to  have  leaned — or,  at  any  rate,  his  fol- 
lowers leaned — to  the  belief  that  even  for  Cientiles  they  might 
beof  great  importance;  and,  like  the  Esseneor  ascetic  J udaists, 
he  personally  adopted  the  rigid  practices  which  may  have  been 
to  him  a  valuable  training  in  self-discipline,  but  which  the 
Colossian  and  other  heretics  regarded  as  constituting  a  legal 
righteousness.  To  us  the  name  "Jewish  Christian"  may 
seem  almost  an  oxymoron — a  juxtaposition  of  contrary  terms. 
We  see  with  St.  Paul — whose  opinions  had  been  the  result  of 
special  divine  training — that  between  the  bondage  of  ceremo- 
nialism and  the  freedom  of  Christianity — between  the  right- 
eousness of  legal  ordinances  and  justification  by  faith — there 
is  a  profound  antithesis.  But  it  was  impossible  that  it  could 
wear  this  aspect  to  the  early  Christians.  We  view  the  matter 
after  nineteen  centuries  of  Christian  experience;  they  were 
the  immediate  heirs  of  nineteen  centuries  of  Jewish  history. 

But  while  in  the  first  line  of  his  letter  St.  James  testifies 
to  his  own  faith,  he  must  have  known  that  his  words  would  be 
received  with  respect  by  genuine  Hebrews,  and  that  it  would 
be  useless  to  enforce  the  lessons  which  he  wished  to  impress 
upon  all  his  countrymen  by  appeals  distinctively  Christian. 
His  whole  nation  was  in  a  state  of  wild  tumult;  swayed  by  pas- 
sion and  worldliness;  indulging  in  the  fierce  language  of 
hatred,  fanaticism,  and  conceit;  becoming  godless  in  their 
tone  of  thought;  relying  on  the  orthodoxy  of  Monotheism;* 
careless  and  selfish  in  the  duties  of  life;  forgetful  of  the  om- 
nipotence of  prayer.    And  the  Christians  whom  he  is  address- 


1  Epiphau.  Haer,  xxx.  18. 


366  TIIK    KARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

iiiiT,  bein.o:  Jews,  participated  in  these  dangers.  He  wished 
to  make  the  Christians  better  Christians,  to  teach  them  a  truer 
wisdom,  a  purer  morahty.  He  wished  to  make  them  better 
Christians  by  making  them  better  Israehtes;  and  he  wished  to 
convert  the  "israehtes  into  being  worthier  mem.bers  of  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel  before  he  could  win  them  to  become  heirs 
of  the  covenant  of  the  better  promise.  If  we  bear  these  cir- 
cumstances in  mind,  if  we  also  remember  that  his  letter  is  not 
intended  for  a  dogmatic  treatise,  but  for  the  moral  exhortation 
of  one  to  whom  the  Law  means  the  rule  of  life  as  Jesus  had 
taught  it,  we  shall  be  better  able  to  judge  of  the  rashness 
which  has  only  condemned  or  slighted  this  Epistle  because  it 
has  failed  to  understand  the  true  purpose  of  the  writer. 

Again,  to  grasp  the  full  meaning  of  St.  James,  we  must 
appreciate  the  passionate  earnestness  of  one  whose  ideal  is  too 
stern  to  admit  of  any  compromise  wath  the  aims  and  pleasures 
of  the  world. 

i.  Critics  have  spoken  of  the  Essenism  and  the  Ebionisni  of 
the  Epistle.  But  although  "help  and  mercy"  were  special 
duties  of  the  Essene,  and  though  St.  James  "writes  mercy 
upon  his  flag,"  there  is  no  trace  that  he  was  an  Essene. 
Doubtless  he  sympathised  with  many  of  the  views  of  that  singu- 
lar body.  Any  Essene  might  have  spoken  just  as  St.  James 
does  about  oaths,  and  riches,  and  merchandise,  and  the  virtue 
of  silence,  and  the  duty  of  checking  wrath;'  but  so  might  any 
Christian  who  had  studied^  as  St.  James  had  studied,  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  later  Ebionites  re- 
presented Judaism  when  it  had  passed  into  heresy.  The  views 
and  tendencies  of  the  early  Christians  in  Jerusalem,  before 
they  had  been  modified  by  the  teachings  of  experience,  were 
only  FJbionite  in  a  sense  perfectly  innocent.  In  these  views 
and  tendencies  St.  J^imes  shared,  but  he  did  not  fall  into  the 
extravagant  exaggeration  by  which  they  were  subsequently 
caricatured. 

ii.  Some,  again,  have  seen  in  the  expressions  of  St.  James 
an  Orphic  colouring;  but  of  this  we  require  much  stronger 
proof  than  the  phrases  "the  engrafted  word,"  or  "the  wheel 
of  being"  (iii.  6),  even  though  those  phrases  may  be  illustrated 
by  parallels  in  the  writings  of  Pythagoreans.'  Undoubtedly, 
,  however,  we  And  a  peculiarity  of  the  Epistle  in  the  extreme 

,-,   ' 5"°'"I''.  J'**-  '•  '9.;  ''-5,  '3  :  iv.  13  ;  v.  12  ;  with  Josephus,  BeU.  Jud.  II.  8,  6,  and  Philo, 
y -i-r'u"^  ■'■'  ^  "*  ("''K<--nfcld,  liinleit.  p.  539). 

Ihc  hexameter  in  I.  17  (whrrc  tho  word  fiiiprj.ua  is  unknown  to  the  N.  T.  in  this  sense), 
and  the  expression  •  •:,thcr  of  h-hts"  l,ave  been  bvispcctcd  of  being  borrowed  from  Alexan- 
drian source*.     I'or  the  liUtcr  sec  l).-in.  viii.  10. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  TIIK  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     ^Gj 

frequency  of  the  parallels  between  its  language  and  that  of 
other  writers.  These  are  so  numerous  that  I  have  no  space 
to  write  them  out  at  length,  but  no  careful  reader  can  entirely 
miss  them.'  They  show  how  strong  was  the  originality  which 
could  absorb  influences  from  many  different  sources,  and  yet 
maintain  its  own  perfect  independence.  In  this  respect  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James  differs  remarkably  from  the  Epistle  of 
St.  Clemens  of  Rome.  St.  James,  even  while  he  borrows 
alike  from  Jewish  prophets  and  from  Alexandrian  theoso- 
phists,  fuses  their  language  into  a  manifesto  of  Judaic  Chris- 
tianity by  the  heat  and  vehemence  of  his  own  individuality. 
He  strikes  lightning  into  all  he  borrows.  St.  Clemens  is  far 
more  passively  receptive.  He  has  the  amiable  and  concilia- 
tory catholicity  which  leads  him  to  adopt  the  moral  teaching 
of  all  schools;  but  he  has  none  of  the  individual  force  which 
might  have  enabled  him  to  infuse  into  what  he  has  borrowed 
an  individual  force. 

iii.  The  style  of  St.  James,  as  compared  with  his  tone  of 
thought,  presents  the  singular  combination  of  pure,  eloquent, 
and  even  rhythmical  Greek,  with  the  prophetic  vehemence 
and  fiery  sternness  of  the  Hebrew  prophet.  The  purity  of  the 
Greek  idiom  has  been  made  a  ground  for  d:>ubting  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  Epistle."  But  the  objection  is  without  weight. 
Palestine — even  Galilee — was  in  those  days  bilingual.  James 
had  probably  spoken  Greek  from  his  birth.  He  would  there- 
fore find  no  difficulty  in  writing  in  that  language,  and  his 
natural  aptitude  may  have  given  him  a  better  style  than  that 
of  many  of  his  countrymen.^  But  even  if  not,  what  difficulty 
is  there  in  the  supposition  that  St.  James,  like  St.  Peter,  em- 
ployed an  "interpreter,"''  or  adopted  the  common  plan  of 
submitting  his  manuscript  to  the  revision  of  some  accom- 
plished Hellenist?     The  thoughts,  the  order  of  them,  and  the 


^  Every  ch:>pter  will  furnish  parallels  to  passages  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (soc  Matt. 
V.  3.  4,  10-12,  22,  24,  33-37,  48  ;  vi.  14,  15,  19,  24  ;  vii.  1-5,  7-12,  21-23)  and  the  cschatologi- 
c.il  discourse  (Mk.  xiii.  7,  9,  29,  32).  For  the  very  remarkable  and  close  parallels  to  the  Book 
tlf  Kcclesiasticits,  comp.  i.  5,  8-12,  13.  19,  23,  25  :  iii.  5,  6,  respectively  with  Ecclus.  x\.  15  : 
.xli.  22  ;  i.  28  ;  xv.  11  :  v.  11  ;  xx.  7  ;  xii.  11  ;  xiv.  23 ;  xxviii.  10,  19  (especially  in  the  Oreek). 
Kor  parallels  to  the  Book  0/ IVisdom.  comp.  Ja.  i.  ic,  11,  17.  20  ;  li.  21  :  iv.  14  ;  v  1-6,  with 
Wisdom  ii.  8;  v.  8  ;  vii.  17-20  ;  xii.  i6 ;  x.  5  ;  v.  9-14:  ii.  1-24.  For  parallels  to  the  Book 
of  Proverbs,  comp.  i.  5,  6,  12,  19,  21  ;  iii.  5  :  iv.  6 ;  v.  20,  respectively  with  Prov.  iii.  5,  6  : 
xxiii.  34  ;  iii.  11  ;  Eccl.  v.  2  ;  Prov.  x.\x.  12  ;  xvi.  27  ;  iii.  34  ;  x.  12.  Many  more  might  be 
added,  but  the  student  who  will  verify  these  references  for  himself  will  see  how  fully  the  points 
mentioned  in  the  text  are  proved. 

-  E.g.,  De  Wette  asks.  How  could  Jame<=  write  such  good  Oreek? 

3  Incomparalily  better,  for  instance,  than  that  of  St.  John  in  the  Apocalj'jjse^ 

<  Si.  Mark  and  a  certain  Glaucias  are  both  mentioned  as  "  interpreters"  of  St.  Peter.  Of 
the  latter— claimed  as  an  authority  by  the  IJasilidians— nothing  is  known  ;  but  St.  Mark  may 
have  acted  as  "  interpreter"  to  St.  Peter  rather  when  he  needed  l.atin  at  Rome  th.an  when  he 
wrote  in  Greek. 


368  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

tone  in  which  they  are  expressed,  are  exactly  such  as  we  should 
have  exi)ccted,  from  all  that  we  know  of  the  writer.  The 
form  of  expression  may  easily  have  been  corrected  by  any  lite- 
rary member  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem.  But  the  accent  of 
authority,  the  noble  sternness,  the  demand  for  unwavering  al- 
Ici^iance  to  the  laws  of  God — even  the  poetic  parallelisms' — 
are  all  his  own.  When  Schleiermacher  speaks  of  "much  bom- 
bast" in  the  Epistle,  and  describes  the  style  as  being  "in  part 
ornate,  in  part  clumsy,"  it  is  because  he  criticises  it  from  a 
wrong  standpoint.  It  is  like  Voltaire  criticising  ^schylus  or 
Shakspeare.  It  is  due  to  the  application  of  Hellenic  canons 
to  Semitic  genius.  The  style  of  St.  James  is  formed  on  the 
Hebrew  prophets,  as  his  thoughts  are  influenced  by  the  He- 
brew gnomologists.  He  has  nothing  of  the  Pauline  method 
of  dialectic;  he  is  never  swept  away,  like  St.  Paul,  by  the  tide 
of  his  own  impassioned  feeling.  His  moral  earnestness  glows 
with  the  steady  light  of  a  furnace,  never  rushes  w^ith  the  un- 
controlled force  of  a  conflagration.  The  groups  of  thoughts  fol- 
low each  other  in  distinct  sections,  which  never  interlace  each 
other,  and  have  little  or  no  logical  connexion  or  systematic 
advance.  He  plunges  in  mcdias  res  with  each  new  topic;  says 
first  in  the  plainest  and  most  straightforward  manner  exactly 
what  he  means  to  say,  and  enforces  it  afterwards  with  strong 
diction,  passionate  ejaculations,  rapid  interrogatives,  and 
graphic  similitudes.  He  generally  begins  mildly,  and  w4th  a 
use  of  the  word  "brethren,"  but  as  he  dwells  on  the  point  his 
words  seem  to  grow  incandescent  with  the  writer's  vehem- 
ence.* In  many  respects  his  style  resembles  that  of  a  fiery 
prophetic  oration  rather  than  of  a  letter.  The  sententious  form 
is  the  expression  of  a  practical  energy  which  will  tolerate  no 
opposition.  The  changes — :often  apparently  abrupt — from 
one  topic  to  another;  the  short  sentences,  which  seem  to  quiver 
in  the  mind  of  the  hearer  from  the  swiftness  with  which  they 
have  been  launched  forth;  the  sweeping  reproofs,  sometimes 
unconnected  by  conjunctions,' sometimes  emphasised  by  many 
conjunctions;'  the  manner  in  which  the  phrases  seem  to  catch 
fire  as  the  writer  proceeds;  the  vivid  freshness  and  picturesque 
energy  of  the  expressions;' — all  make  us  fancy  that  we  are 
listening  to^ome  great  harangue  which  has  for  its  theme  the 

|cbl>,  Sacred  I. Herat,  p.  273. 

im.,n>  of  his  inclliod  in  the'-e  respects  see  ii.  1-13  ;  iv.  11,  12. 
■    il'M  ii<:<- of  omjdticticins,  J:i.  v.  3-6. 
.  '(F  iiiiiliipliciiv  of  conjunctions,  Ja.  iv.  13. 
,     '  '  111  critics  call  oeifdTTjt.     St.  James  is  a  perfect  aurocrat  in  the  use  of  words. 

•!'-■  -''""""^  "V'">*"-^  UipuHiena,  or  expressions  either  not  found  elsewhere  or  not  in  the  New 
JcftUincni.     1  hcsc  arc  mcnuoncd  in  the  notes. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JAMES.     369 

rebuke  of  sin  and  the  exhortation  to  righteousness,  in  order 
to  avert  the  awfuhiess  of  some  imminent  crisis.  The  power 
of  his  style  consists  in  the  impression  which  it  leaves  of  the 
burning  sincerity  and  lofty  character  of  the  author. 

iv.  For  these  reasons  it  is  almost  impossible  to  write  an 
atmlysis  of  the  Epistle.  The  analysis  is  only  a  catalogue  of  the 
subjects  with  which  it  deals.'  Writing  to  those  who  are  suf- 
fering trials,  he  exhorts  them  to  endurance,  that  they  may  lack 
nothing  (i.  i — 4).  But  if  they  lack  wisdom,  they  must  ask 
God  for  it,  and  desire  it  with  whole-heartedness  (5 — 8).  'J'he 
enemy  of  whole-heartedness  is  often  worldly  wealth,  and  he 
therefore  tells  them  how  blessed  poverty  may  be,  and  how 
transitory  are  riches  (9 — 11).  Since  poverty  is  in  itself  a  trial, 
he  shows  the  blessedness  of  enduring  the  trials  which  come 
from  God.  But  there  are  trials  which,  while  they  come  in  the 
semblance  of  trials  from  God,  have  their  origin  in  lust  and 
their  end  death  (12 — 15).  It  is  only  the  good  and  perfect 
gifts  which  come  from  God;  above  all,  the  gift  of  our  birth  by 
the  Word  of  Truth  (16 — 18).  Let  them  in  meekness  and 
purity  live  worthily  of  that  Word  of  Truth  (19 — 21);  let  them 
be  doers,  and  not  mere  hearers  of  it  (22 — 25);  let  them  learn 
to  distinguish  between  external  service  and  the  true-  ritual  of 
loving  unselfishness  (26,  27). 

Then  passing  to  some  of  their  special  national  faults,  he 
first  sternly  rebukes  the  respect  of  persons,  which  was  con- 
trary to  Ghrist's  ideal,  and  a  sin  against  the  perfect  law  of 
liberty  (ii.  i — 13).  It  is,  perhaps,  because  he  saw  the  origin 
of  this  selfish  arrogance  and  abject  servility  in  the  reliance 
which  they  placed  on  a  nominal  orthodoxy,  that  he  enters  into 
the  question  about  faith  and  works,  to  show  that  the  former, 
in  his  sense  of  the  word,  is  dead,  and  therefore  valueless  with- 
out the  latter  (14 — 26). 

Then  he  powerfully  warns  them  against  the  sins  of  the 

'  Ewald  arranges  it  in  seven  divisions,  followed  by  three  shorter  paragraphs  : — 
i.  2-18.     On  trials. 

How  we  ought  to  hear  and  do  God's  Word. 

Right  behaviour  in  general. 

The  relation  between  Faith  and  Works. 

Control  of  the  tongue  is  true  wisdom. 

The  evils  of  strife.  i  ■         r 

II.     Perils  of  the  rich,  and  duty  of  endurance  with  reference  to  the  coming  of 

(i.)  V.  12.     The  sinfulness  of  needless  oaths. 

(ii.)  V.  13-18.     The  power  of  prayer,  especially  in  sickness. 

(iii.)  V.  19,  20.     The  blessing  of  converting  others. 
The  reader  will  perhaps  think  some  of  the  divisions  somewhat  artificial,  especially  as  Ewald 
himself  describes  them.     But  there  is  nothing  surprising  ni  the  general  flict  that  a  Jewisli- 
Christian  should  arrange  his  work  with  some  reference  to  numerical  symmetry  ;  and  Ewald 
points  out  that  the  number  three  prevails  in  ii.  19,  iii.  15,  and  the  number  seven  in  in.  17. 

24 


1.  : 

[9-27. 

n. 

I-I3- 

n. 

14-26. 

111. 

1-18. 

IV. 

1-12. 

IV. 

13-V. 

Christ. 

}^JO  iilE    LAKLV    IJAVS    OF   CIIRISTIANITV. 

tongue  in  passion  and  controversy  (ill.  i — 12);  and  to  show 
that  tlie  loudest  and  angriest  talker  is  not  therefore  in  the 
right,  he  draws  a  contrast  between  true  and  false  wisdom  (13 
—18). 

The  source  of  the  evils  on  v/hich  he  has  been  dwelling  is 
the  unbridled  lust  which  springs  from  worldliness.  They  need 
humility,  and  the  determination  to  fight  aganst  sin,  and  sin- 
cere repentance  (iv.  i — 10),  which  will  show  itself  in  an  avoid- 
ance of  evil  speaking  (11,  12),  and  in  a  deeper  sense  that  their 
life  is  wholly  in  God's  disposing  hands  (13 — 17). 

After  this  he  bursts  into  a  strong  denunciation  of  the  rich 
who  live  in  pride,  oppression,  and  self-indulgence  (v.  i — 6), 
while  he  comforts  the  poor,  and  counsels  them  to  patience 
(7 — 11).  Then  he  warns  against  careless  oaths  (12),  gives 
counsels  for  the  time  of  sickness  (13 — 15),  advises  mutual 
confession  of  sins  (16),  dwells  once  more  on  the  efficacy  of 
prayer,  as  shown  in  the  example  of  Elijah  (16 — 20),  and  ends 
somewhat  abruptly  with  a  weighty  declaration  of  the  blessed- 
ness of  converting  others. 

V.  If  it  be  asked  what  is  the  one  predominant  thought  in 
the  Epistle,  its  one  idea  and  motive,  the  answer  seems  to  be 
neither  (as  some  have  supposed)  the  blessedness  of  enduring 
temptation — though  this  is  very  prominent  in  it;^  nor  a  polemic 
against  mistaken  impressions  respecting  justification  by  faith, 
though  that  occupies  an  important  section;'  nor  an  Ebionising 
exaltation  of  the  poor  over  the  rich,  though  the  rich  are  sternly 
warned;'  nor  a  contrast  between  the  friendship  of  the  world 
and  the  enmity  of  God."  Each  of  these  topics  has  its  own 
weight  and  importance,  but  to  bring  any  of  them  into  exclusive 
prominence  is  to  confuse  the  general  with  the  special.  The 
general  object,  as  is  shown  again  and  again,  is  to  impress  the 
conviction  that  Christian  faithfulness  must  express  itself  in 
the  energy  and  action  of  loving  service.'  "Temptations,"  in- 
deed, occupy  a  large  share  in  his  thoughts,  but  he  wished  his 
readers  to  try  against  them  the  "expulsive  power  of  good 
affections."  The  ritualism  of  active  love  and  earnestness  in 
prayer  are  with  him  the  means  of  perfection.'' 

vi.  It  is  this  object  which  gives  to  the  Epistle  its  contro- 
versial aspect.    St.  Paul  says  thataman  is  justified  byfaith;  St. 

•  J.i.  I.  3  and  4,  uTro^xov-rj  ;  12.  ^oKopios  o.vr^p,  6s  vn-0/u.eVei  ;  v.  7,  fiaKpoOvixria-aTe  ovv,  aSe\- 
Joi  .  .  .  naKpoOvixmi'  ;  8,  ^<u(pot»v,xjj<7aTe  Acai  iifjith  ;  10,  UTroSeiy/Lia  AdSere  .  .  .  rns  ua/cpo- 
»v^tat  ;    ri.  vnop.*yoyra<:.  '^  ii.  ,0-26.  3  ii.  ^.^  .   i^.  j.^^  '.   v.  1-6. 

...  'v- 4.  5  (i  J-  »».  15-17)1  and  he  opposes  special  forms  of  worldliness  in  i.  2-15  :  ii.  1-4  ; 
Ml.  1-18 :  .V.  13    ,4  M.  4,  22  ;  ii.  i4-=6  :  iii.  13-17 ;  iv.  17,  etc. 

<x  1  M  ■'"Tx"  TJ'  "".  '^^"»  ^o'''^'  >•.  3i  35  :  in.  2  :  V.  4  :  "lout  dans  I'dcriture  est  I'ideal" 
lAd.  Munod).     He  speaks  of  prayer  ni  i.  5  ;  iv.  2,  ->„  8  ;   v.  13-18. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  EITSTLE  i)V  ST.  JAMES.     37  I 

James,  that  he  is  justified  by  works;  but  St.  James  is  using  the 
word  "faith"  from  the  standpoint  of  Jewish  reahsm,  not  of 
PauHne  ideaHty.  With  both  of  these  Apostles  the  Law  is  an 
inward,  not  an  outward  thing;  a  principle  of  liberty,  not  a 
yoke  of  bondage;  a  word  of  truth;  a  living  impulse  of  fruitful 
activity  implanted  in  man.'  Seeing  the  danger  of  doctrinal 
formalism,  St.  James  writes  to  counteract  its  unpractical  ten- 
dencies, and  to  furnish  us — from  the  standpoint,  indeed,  of 
Jewish  Christianity,  but  still  of  an  enlightened,  liberal,  and 
spiritualised  form  of  it — the  delineation  of  the  Christian  as  he 
ought  to  be,  '  'as  a  perfect  man  in  the  perfection  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  which  can  only  be  properly  conceived  as  a  perfect 
work."  And  from  this  point  of  view  his  letter  was  a  valuable 
contribution  to  the  formation  of  a  Catholic  Christianity. 
There  is  nothing  harshly  intended  in  its  statement  of  the 
counter-aspect  of  the  truth  which  St.  Paul  had  proclaimed. 
St.  Paul  would  himself  have  rebutted  the  one-sided  distortion 
of  his  views;  and  he  who  opposes  one-sided  tendencies  always 
does  a  useful  work.  It  is  a  duty  of  Catholic  Christianity  to 
adjust  one  truth  with  another,  and  to  place  apparent  con- 
traries in  their  position  of  proper  equilibrium.^  It  is  inevi- 
table— it  is  even  desirable — that  men  should  approach  truth 
from  many  points  of  view.  We  can  only  hope  to  gain  com- 
pleteness of  vision  by  combining  their  separate  results.  It  is 
certain  that  we  ourselves  shall  be  more  inclined,  by  tempera- 
ment and  training,  to  dwell  on  one  aspect  of  truth  than  we  shall 
on  others.  Yet  it  is  not  therefore  necessary  that  we  should 
become  party  men.  It  is  possible  to  insist  upon  party  truths 
without  being  tainted  by  party  spirit.  There  existed  at  least 
three  marked  parties  in  the  early  Christian  Church — the  par- 
ties of  Jewish,  of  Alexandrian,  and  of  Pauline  Christianity. 
There  were  many  Christians  who  would  not  identify  them- 
selves with  any  of  these  parties,  but  who  aimed  at  being  many- 
sided,  conciliatory,  catholic.  Now  St.  James  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  party  of  Jewish  Christians,  though  his  followers 
thrust  him  more  prominently  into  this  position  than  he  would 
have  himself  desired.'  But  if  we  would  see  the  depth  of  dif- 
ference which  separates  him  from  the  Jewish  Christians  to 
whom  the  party-view  was  everything,  and  the  common  Chris- 
tianity was,  by  comparison,  as  nothing,  we  shall  be  able  to 

1  Ad-yos  e/Lii^uTOS.     Ja.  i.  21.  ,         ,    .  r 

2  See  the  few  but  weighty  remarks  of  Haur,  C/:.  Hist.  pp.  128-130,  though  he  untortu- 
nately  denies  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle. 

3  Acts  XV.  24,  "  to  whom  wc  gave  no  such  comman  Inicnt." 


112  TIIK   KARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

judge  of  it  by  reading  his  Epistle  side  by  side  with  the  poison- 
ous innuendoes  and  rancorous  calumnies  of  the  pseudo-Clemen- 
tines. T/nir  polemic  consisted  in  secretly  maligning  the  views 
and  character  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  The  polemic  of 
St.  James  issued  in  the  delineation  of  the  moral  character  of 
a  Christian  man.  The  party  controversialists  only  fostered 
mutual  hatred  and  opposition;  St.  James  drew  so  noble  a 
picture  of  Christian  faithfulness  that,  as  has  well  been  said, 
"a  Church  which  lived  in  sincere  accordance  with  his  lessons 
Would  in  no  respect  dishonour  the  Christian  name." 

In  proceeding  to  examine  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  we  shall 
do  so  with  deeper  interest  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  yet 
another  appeal  of  a  great  Christian  writer  to  Jews  and  Jewish 
Christians  shortly  before  the  final  destruction  of  their  separate 
nationality.  St.  Paul  had  shown  them  the  eternal  superiority  of 
the  new  to  the  old  covenant.  St.  Peter  had  shown  them  how 
Christianity  was  the  true  kingdom,  the  ro3^al  priesthood,  the 
theocratic  inheritance.  Apollos,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
had  furnished  them  with  a  masterly  proof  that  Christians  had 
the  true  priesthood,  which  could  alone  admit  any  man  into  the 
heavenly  sanctuary.  St.  James  calls  them  to  obey  the  royal  Law, 
the  law  of  liberty.  Thus  they  had  been  shown  by  St.  Paul  and 
Apollos  that  the  rejection  of  Christianity,  or  apostasy  from  it, 
was  the  rejection  of,  or  apostasy  from,  grace  to  sin — from  the 
substance  to  the  shadow.  St.  Peter  had  warned  them  against 
murmuring  and  faithless  impatience;  St.  James  sternly  sets 
before  them  the  perils  of  insincerity  and  double-mindedness. 
And  the  common  message  of  all  is  that  Jews  who  had  em- 
braced the  fa4th  of  Christ  should  hope  and  endure,  and  be 
faithful  unto  the  end. 

vii.  In  one  respect  the  Epistle  is  unique.  Alone  of  the 
twenty  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  it  begins  with  no  bene- 
diction, and  ends  with  no  message  of  peace.  ^  We  might,  per- 
haps, see  in  this  fact  a  reflexion  of  the  unbending  character 
of  the  writer.  He  was  a  man  who  in  many  respects  stood 
alone,  and  whose  manner  it  was  to  say  what  he  had  to  say 
without  formula  or  preamble,  in  the  fewest  and  simplest  words. 
The  times  demanded  sternness  and  brevity.  They  resembled 
the  days  which  had  called  forth  the  sixfold  woe  of  Isaiah'  on 
greed,  and  luxury,  and  unbelief,  and  pride,  and  injustice,  and 
the  reversal  of  moral  truths;  and  which  had  forced  him  to  end 


'  This  might  be  said  also  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John  ;  but  that  Epistle—even  if  we  do 
not  accept  the  view  th.-il  it  was  sent  to  accomp.-iny  the  Gospel-has  no  epistolary  address,  and 
IS  more  of  the  nature  of  a  treatise  than  an  I'.pistle.  'i  U   v    1-30 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  373 

those  woes  with  the  denunciation  of  terrible  retribution.  Hol- 
low professions  of  religion,  empty  shows  and  shadows  of  faith, 
partiality  and  respect  of  persons,  slavish  idolatry  of  riches, 
observance  of  some  of  God's  commandments,  toi^^ether  with 
open  and  impious  defiance  of  others;  arrogant  assumi)tion  of 
the  office  of  religious  teaching  without  due  call  and  authority; 
encouragement  and  patronage  of  those  who  set  themselves  up 
to  be  spiritual  guides;  sins  of  the  tongue;  evil  speaking  against 
man  and  God;  envying  and  strife;  factions  and  party  feuds; 
wars  and  fightings;  adulteries;  pride  and  revelry;  sordid 
worldliness  and  presumptuous  self-confidence;  a  Babel-like 
building  up  of  secular  plans  and  projects,  independently  of 
God's  will,  and  against  it;  vainglorious  display  of  wealth; 
hard-heartedness  towards  those  by  whose  industry  that  wealth 
is  acquired;  self-indulgence  and  sensuality;  an  obstinate  con- 
tinuance in  that  temper  of  unbelief  which  rejected  and  cruci- 
fied Christ;  "these,"  as  we  see  from  this  Epistle,  "were  the 
sins  of  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem;  for  these  she  was  to  be 
destroyed  by  God;  for  these  she  7vas  destroyed;  and  her  chil- 
dren have  been  scattered  abroad,  and  have  now  been  outcasts 
for  near  two  thousand  years.  .  .  .  Amid  such  circumstances, 
St.  James,  the  Apostle  and  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  wrote  this 
Epistle — an  Epistle  of  warning  to  Jerusalem — the  last  warning 
it  received  from  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  He  thus  discharged 
the  work  of  a  Hebrew  Prophet  and  of  a  Christian  Apostle. 
He  came  forth  as  a  Christian  Jeremiah  and  a  Christian  Mala- 
chi.  A  Jeremiah  in  denouncing  woe;  a  Malachi  sealing  up 
the  roll  of  Divine  prophecy  to  Jerusalem:  and  not  to  Jerusa- 
lem only,  but  to  the  Jews  throughout  the  world,  who  were 
connected  with  Jerusalem  by  religious  worship  and  by  per- 
sonal resort  to  its  great  festal  anniversaries.  The  Epistle  of 
St.  James  is  the  farewell  voice  of  Hebrew  prophecy.'" 


CHAPTER   XXn. 

THE    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JAMES. 

"  Cliristianorum  omnis  religio  sine  scelere  et  macula  vivere." — Lvctantius. 

"  What  a  noble  man  speaks  in  this  Kplstle  !  Deep  unbroken  patience  in  suffering  !  Great- 
ness ni  poverty  !  Joy  in  sorrow  !  Simplicity,  sincerity,  firm  direct  confidence  in  prayer  !  .  .  . 
How  he  wants  action  !    Action  !    not  wordsj  not  dead  faith  ! " — Hekdek. 

As  we  have  now  learnt  all  that  we  can  about  the  author  of  the 
Epistle,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote,  we  shall 
be  in  a  better  position  to  understand  rightly  his  solemn  teaching. 

'  Hishop  Wordsworth,  whom  I  quote  the  more  gladly  because  I  dissent  widely  from  his 
exegetical  views. 


374  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

"Jamf.s,  a  slave  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'" — 
such  is  the  title  which  he  assumes,  and  the  only  personal  word 
in  his  entire  Epistle."'  It  was  a  simple  title,  and  yet  in  his  eyes, 
as  in  those  of  the  other  Apostles,  nobler  than  any  other  badge 
which  he  could  adopt,  for  they  all  felt  that  they  were  "bought 
with  a  price."  He  will  not  call  himself  an  Apostle,  because 
in  the  highest  technical  sense  he  is  not  an  Apostle,  since  he 
is  not  one  of  the  Twelve.^  He  had  no  need  of  any  such  title 
to  command  the  attention  of  Christians,  among  whom  he  ex- 
ercised unquestioned  authority,  and  it  was  not  a  title  which 
would  be  recognised  among  the  unconverted  Jews,  whom  he 
also  desired  to  address.  Nor,  again,  will  he  call  himself  "a 
brother  of  the  Lord."  That  w^as  a  claim  which  was  thrust 
into  prominence  on  his  behalf  by  others,  but  it  is  not  one 
which  he  would  himself  have  approved.  It  reminded  him, 
perhaps  painfully,  of  the  wasted  opportunities  of  those  years 
in  which  he  had  not  believed  on  Him;  nor  could  he  forget 
with  what  marked  emphasis  the  Lord  Jesus,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  His  public  ministry,  had  set  aside  as  of  no  spiritual 
significance  the  claims  of  fleshly  relationship.  Of  the  Risen, 
of  the  glorified,  of  the  Eternal  Christ,  he  was  in  no  sense 
"the  brother,"  but  "the  slave."*  I  cannot  imagine  that  he 
would  have  listened  without  indignation  to  the  name  conferred 
on  him  by  the  heated  partisanship  of  those  who  in  after  days 
called  him  "the  brother  of  God."  The  name  would  have 
shocked  to  its  inmost  depths  the  feeling  which  every  Jew  im- 
bibed from  the  earliest  training  of  his  childhood  respecting 
the  nothingness  of  man  and  the  awfulness  and  unapproachable 
majesty  of  God.  He  was,  in  a  secondary  and  carnal  sense,  a 
half-brother  of  Jesus  in  His  earthly  humiliation;  but  he  must 
have  learnt  from  the  words  of  the  Lord  Himself  that  this  kins- 
manship  in  the  flesh  could  hardly  redeem  from  unconscious 
blasphemy  a  name  so  confui;ing,  so  unwarrantable,  and  so  un- 
scriptural,  as  "brother  of  God."     In  the  only  sense  in  which 


'  This  and  it.  i  arc  the  only  passages  in  which  the  names  "  Jesus  "  or  '*  Christ "  occur,  but 
l-y  no  means  the  only  references  to  Him.  See  supra,  p.  363.  Bengel  says  that  it  might  have 
l.Kjkcd  hkc  pride  if  he  had  seemed  to  speak  too  much  of  Jesus  after  the  flesh.  The  real  solu- 
tion of  the  ni.aicr  lies  in  the  object  and  character  of  the  Kpistle.  He  does  not,  indeed,  men- 
fi'.n  Christ  in  his  speech  (Acts  xv.  14-21)  ;  but  that  was  brief  and  purely  special.  The  word- 
ing 'i  11.  1,  .uid  the  .-issociation  of  Jesus  with  Ciod  the  Father  in  this  verse,  clearly  shows  that 
I  ^:  Iimcs  tlie  I^jnl  was  not  the  ^tKb<:  av0po}noi  of  the  Ebionites ;  nor  would  James  have 
•  .  .     '.  1  imsdf  "a  slave '^  of  any  mortal  man.     See  C/iristologie,  i.  95. 

-  un-fp  ■ita.v  hi  KoaniKoy  afiw^ia  ...  to  fiouAoi  dvai  XpuTTOv  KaXAwiri^Ojuefoi  toOto  yvta- 
pitrixa  tavTuiy  ^ovAol^a^  irotelaeai  (CEcumen.)  ;  Rom.  i.  i  ;  2  Pet.  i.  i,  etc.  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  20; 
vti.  a  j. 

J»  "The  thirteen  Apostles  were  appointed  by  the  Lord  ;  St.  James,    St.   Clemens,  and 
othcfH  hy  the  Apostles-  {.l/os/.  Constt.  ii.  55V 

«  Rom.  I    I  ;   z  Pet.  i.  i  ;   Jude  i. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  375 

the  word  could  have  any  meaning,  every  faithful  Christian  was 
in  ail  respects  as  much  "a  brother  of  God"  as  he.  That  he 
was,  in  common  parlance,  "a  brother  of  Him  who  was  called 
the  Christ,"  there  was  no  need  for  him  to  mention.  It  was  a 
fact  known  to  every  Jew  of  the  Dispersion  who  visited  Jeru- 
salem at  the  yearly  feasts,  and  it  even  stands  as  a  description 
of  St.  James  on  the  indifferent  page  of  the  Jewish  historian. 

"To  the  twelve  tribes  that  are  in  the  Dispersion/ giving 
them  joy. ' '"'  The  ten  tribes  had,  as  a  body,  been  indistinguish- 
ably  lost  among  the  nations  into  whose  countries  they  had 
been  transplanted/  but  there  were  probably  some  communi- 
ties, and  certainly  many  families,  which  had  preserved  their 
genealogy,  and  still  took  pride  in  the  thought  that  they  be- 
longed to  this  or  that  tribe  of  ancient  Israel.*  And  the  nation 
never  lost  the  sense  of  its  ideal  unity.  The  number  "twelve" 
was  to  the  Jews  a  symbolic  number.  ''Three'  was  to  them 
the  sacred  number,  the  number  of  Spirit,  the  number  of  the 
life  that  is  in  God;  ''four'  was  the  number  which  symbolised 
Divine  Providence;  "twelve''  (4x3)  was  the  number  of 
Heavenly  completeness,  the  number  of  the  consummation  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God.^  Hence  St.  Paul  also  speaks  of  "the 
dodekaphidon,,''^  our  "twelve-tribed  nation,"  and  St.  John,  in 
the  Apocalypse,  echoes  in  various  forms^  the  conception  of 
the  Elect  of  the  Twelve  Tribes  in  Heaven  which  had  been  in- 
volved in  the  promise  of  Christ,  "Ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones  judging  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel."^ 

It  is  a  curious  and  undesigned  coincidence  that  this  letter, 
and  the  encyclical  letter  from  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  of 
which  St,  James  w^as  the  main  author,  are  the  only  two  Chris- 
tian letters  in  the  New  Testament  which  begin  with  the  greet- 
ing  "giving   them   joy.""     It   was    distinctively   the    Greek 

1  See  Li/e  and  Work  of  St.  Paul.,  i.  115  seq.  The  word  Diaspora  occurs  in  John  viL 
35  ;   I  Pet.  1.  l;  and  in  the  LXX.  of  Ps.  cxlvi.  2  ;   Deut.  x.xviii.  25.  2  yce  infra,  p.  376. 

3  Dean  Plumptre  points  out  that  the  first  appearance  of  the  fiction  that  the  Ten  Tribes 
were  somewhere  preserved  as  one  body  is  in  2  Esdr.  xiii.  39-47,  where  the  author  says  that, 
in  the  determination  to  keep  their  own  statutes,  "  they  took  tins  counsel  among  themselves, 
that  they  would  leave  the  multitude  of  the  heathen,  and  go  forth  into  a  farther  country,  where 
never  mankind  dwelt."  The  Talmud  recognises  their  entire  dispersion.  Thus  Rabbi  Ashe 
said,  ''If  a  Clentile  should  betroth  a  Jewess,  the  betrothal  may  not  now  be  invalid,  for  he 
may  be  a  descendant  of  one  of  the  Ten  Tribes,  and  so  of  the  seed  of  Israel"  (Yevamoth,  f. 
16,  b).  Again,  "the  Ten  Tribes  will  never  be  restored  (Deut.  x.wiH.  25)  .  .  .  so  says  R. 
Akhiva"  (Sanhedrin,  f.  no,  b).  •»  E.^sr.,  the  widow  Anna,  who  was  of  the  tribe  of  Asher. 

'^  See  Herzog,  Real.  Encycl..,  s.  v.  Zaklen  ;  Lange,  Apocalypse,  Introd.,  §  6,  a. 

**  Acts  xxvi.  7. 

^  12  trilxjs  ;  24  elders ;  12,000  of  each  tribe  ;  144,000  of  the  followers  of  the  Lamb,  etc. 
The  latter  number  is  so  far  from  being  narrowly  restrictive,  that  it  stands  for  a  number  ideally 
complete.  .  •*  Matt.  xix.  28 ;  Rev.  vii.  5-8, 

'•*  Acts  xv;23,  xat'pci''-  'J'he  word  also  occurs  in  the  Greek  letter  of  Claudius  I.ysias  to 
Felix  (Acts  xxiii.  26),  and  in  that  of  Antiochus  in  2  IMacc.  ix.  19.  Its  recurrence  here  is  one 
of  the  undesigned  coincidences  l^tween  this  letter  and  the  account  given  of  St.  James  m  the 
Acts. 


n^ 


THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


salutation.  The  Jewish  was  Shalofn — "Peace."'  St.  Paul, 
wishing  to  combine  in  his  salutations  all  that  was  most  blessed 
alike  in  ethni*  and  in  spiritual  life,  combines  the  two  national 
methods  of  salutation  in  his  x'V^  '<at  dpi^v-q,  "grace  and  peace," 
which  in  his  pastoral  Epistles  is  tenderly  amplified  into  "grace, 
mercy,  and  peace." 

1  have  here  rendered  the  word  by  "giving  them  joy"^  be- 
cause it  forms  the  transition  to  the  opening  passage,  "My 
brethren,  count  it  all  joy."  This  mode  of  transition  by  the 
repetition  of  a  word — which  is  technically  known  as  duadiplosis 
— is  very  characteristic  of  this  Epistle,  and  forms,  in  fact,  the 
writer's  ordinary  method  of  passing  from  one  paragraph  to 
another.^  The  remainder  of  the  chapter — the  phraseology  of 
which  I  will  endeavour  to  elucidate  in  the  notes,  and  the  gen- 
eral bearing  in  the  text — runs  as  follows: — 

"  Count  it  all  joy,^  my  brethren, ^  when  ye  suddenly  fall  into  varied  tempta- 
tions/ recognising  that  the  testing  of  your  faith^  works  endurance  ;  but  let  en- 
durance have  a  perfect  work,"  that  ye  may  be  perfect  and  complete,  lacking 
nothing'-'  (i.  2 — 4). 

"  But  if  any  one  of  you  lacks  wisdom, '»  let  him  ask  from  God,  who  giveth  to 
all  simply"  and  upbraideth  \\o\.,^-  and  it  shall  be  given  him"  (5). 


*  Is.  xlviii.  23  :  Ivii.  22,  where  Shalom  is  rendered  xaipeiv  by  the  LXX. 

'  Comp.  2  John  10,  11.  The  absence  of  any  opening  benediction  may  be  due  to  the g'eneral 
character  of  the  letter, 

'  Thus  we  have  ver.  1,  xaipf"' ;  ver.  2,  x^^P"-^^  virofxavriv  ;  ver.  3,  ij  Se  vnofj.ovT^  ;  ver.  4, 
Xtinoixevoi  ;  ver.  5,  et  Se  tis  Aei'rreTai ;  ver.  6,  fjiTjfief  Si.aKpi.v6fi.evoi  6  yap  Stoxpij'o/u.ei'os,  etc.  ; 
and  -SO  throughout. 

*  TrOffav  X"P*''>  incruvi  gaudium,  eitel  Freude.  Comp.  Luke  vi.  22,  23  ;  Acts  v.  41  ; 
Col.  i.  24. 

'  The  perpetual  recurrence  of  this  word  shows  that  the  wounds  which  St.  James  inflicts  are 
meant  to  be  the  faithful  wounds  of  a  friend. 

*  jrepi7r««rT)Te  of  sudden  accidents,  as  Ajjo-Tais  irepiewetTev,  Luke  x.  30  ;  nepiTre<T6vTe<; ^Se  et? 
TOJTOi'  6if'dAaao-oi'.  The  word  woi/ciAos  literally  means  "many-coloured."  Comp.  eTri^Ujuii'ais 
irotKiAais,  I  Tim.  iii.  6.  'Jhe  word  "temptations"  includes  all  forms  of  trial  :  Luke  x.xii.  28  ; 
Acts  XX.  19.     Persecution  was  rife  at  this  time  :   i  Thess.  ii.  14  ;  Heb.  xi.  32,  33. 

'  Verse  3,  to  Soki/jliov  iiiiiav  t^s  7ri<TT€<os.  St.  Peter  (i  Pet.  i.  7)  uses  the  same  phrase,  and 
tlic  coincidence  can  hardly  be  accidental, 

*  Matt.  xxiv.  13 — 6  6e  ujro/xetvas  eis  tc'Ao?  abiOrjcreTai. 

*  "  The  work  of  God,"  says  Alford,  "  in  a  man  is  the  man."  The  word  Te'Aetos  is  a  favour- 
ite one  with  St.  James  (i.  3,  4,  17,  25  ;  iii.  2),  borrowed,  doubtless,  from  the  words  of  our  Lord 
(Matt.  V.  48  ;  xix.  21).     'OAo^cATjpos  is  also  used  by  St.  Paul  (i  Thess.  v.  28),  and  means 

'well  rcgjilated  m  every  part"  (Acts  iii.  16).     Philo  and  Josephus  use  it  for  unblemished 
sacrificial  victims. 

10  «•  Wisdom  "  with  St  James  is  evidently  that  practical  wisdom  which  surpasses  knowledge 
(yfw<n«).  f)ccause  it  not  only  knows  truth,  but  acts  upon  diat  knowledge  Uityvt.  Magn.). 
Comp.  ni.  15-17;  1  Cor.  xii.  8  ;  Col.  ii.  3. 

|!  ,^.7^"^'-  ^"  '•*  ^'^"?-  "'»•  8  we  are  bidden  to  grow  in  "  simplicity." 
t  •  \\^  "".caning  of  this  expression  is  best  seen  from  Ecclus.  xx.  15,  where  it  is  said  of  the 
fool  "lie-  -iveth  little,  and  upbraideth  much  ;  he  opcneth  his  mouth  like  a  crier  :  to-day  he 
lendcili.  and  to-morrow  he  will  ask.  .Such  an  one  is  to  be  hated  of  God  and  man  "  Id.  xH. 
aa.  After  thou  hasi  given,  upbraid  not"  (/xtj  6i/ei6tfe).  The  ''  exprobratio  hem-ficV  (Ter. 
Andr.  1.  x)—i,f,^  ilif  casting  in  the  teeth  of  others  what  we  have  done  for  them— is  a  vice  of 
all  a;;'-'!. 

'»  Sec  I  Kings  iii.  11,  12.  "  Because  thou  hast  asked  this  thing  (wisdom),  bdiold.  I  have 
done  according  to  thy  word,"  Luke  xi.  13;  Kcclus.  vii.  10,  "  He  not  f^unthearted  when  thou 
njakcsr  thy  prayer.  '  Wc  see  here  that  by  "  faitli"  St.  lames  means  undivided  confidence  in 
tiod.  4 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  IJJ 

"  But  let  him  ask  in  faith, i  nothing  doubting.^  for  he  that  doubteth  is  hko  a 
wave  of  the  sea  wincl-driven^  and  tossed  about.  For  let  not  that  person  think 
that  he  shall  receive  anything*  from  the  Lord— a  double-minded  man,*  unsettled 
in  all  his  ways"  (6 — 8). 

"  But  let  the  humble  brother  glory  in  his  exaltation,  but  the  rich  in  his  hu- 
miliation," because  as  the  ilower  of  tlie  grass  he  shall  pass  avvay.s  For  the  sun 
ariseth  with  the  burning  wind,  and  drieth  the  grass,  and  its  flower  fadeth  away, 
and  the  beauty  of  its  aspect  perisheth  ;'•>  so  also  shall  the  rich  man  fade  away  in 
his  goings'"  (9 — 11). 

"  Blessed  is  the  man"  who  cndureth  temptation,  for  when  he  has  been  np- 
proved  he  shall  receive  the  garland  of  the  life'-  which  He  promised'^  to  those 
who  love  hiniJ'  (12). 

"  I>et  no  one  who  is  being  tempted  say,  '  I  am  being  tempted  from  God.' 
For  God  is  out  of  the  sphere  of  evils,'"  and  Himself  temptcth  no  one,  but  each 


'  See  V.  15 ;  Matt.  xxi.  22,  "  All  things  whatsoever  ye  ask  in  prayer,  belie^nng,  j'e  shall 
receive." 

■•^  Aia/cpii/d/u.ei'o?,  Matt.  xxi.  21,  "If  ye  have  faith  and  doubt  not  (ja>)  fiia/cpiflrJTe),  ye  shall  do 
not  only  the  miracle  of  the  fig-tree,  but,."  etc. ;  Rom.  iv.  20,  Abraham  oi>  SuKpiOr)  rjj  airicTTto. 
"When  faith  says  'yes'  and  unbelief  says  'no,'"  says  Huther,  "to  doubt  {^laKpiveaBa'.}  is 
the  union  of  'yes'  and  'no,'  but  so  that  '  no'  is  the  weightier.  The  deep-lying  ground  of  it  is 
pride."     Dean  Piumptre  quotes  from  'J'ennyson — 

"  Faith  and  unfaith  can  ne'er  be  equal  powers, 
Unfaith  in  aught  is  want  of  faith  in  all." 

3  dve/ttt^o/iieVw  •  koX  pin  1^0 fxevta.  The  words  occur  here  only,  and  kAu'Swv  ("billow")  only  in 
Luke  viii.  24  ;  but  we  have  the  metaphor  in  Is.  Ivii.  20  ;  Kph.  iv.  14,  The  words  well  express 
the  state  of  tumultuous  excitement  which  preceded  the  Jewish  War. 

•*  That  is,  "  any  special  answer  to  prayer." 

5  'Avrip  8L\pvxo^.  "  The  man  who  has  two  souls  in  conflict  with  each  other."  This  striking 
expression  occurs  only  at  iv.  8.  Rabbi  Tanchum  {/.  84)  on  Deut  xxvi.  17  gives  a  close  paral- 
lel, "  Let  not  those  who  pray  have  two  hearts,  one  directed  to  God,  one  to  somethmg  else." 
Comp.  I  Kings  xviii.  21  ;  Ps.  xii.  2,  "a  double  heart"  (///.  "a  heart  and  a  heart")  :  Ecclus. 
i.  28,  '■  Come  not  unto  the  Lord  with  a  double  heart ;  "  Is.  ii.  12,  "Woe  be  to  .  .  .  the  sniner 
that  £ve^/i  t7vo  ways;"  Matt.  vi.  24,  "  No  man  can  serve  two  masters."  The  passage  is 
imitated  in  "I'he  Shepherd  of  Hermas  "  (.l/rt;/^/^ A  ix.).  _  __ 

e  'AKaTao-TttTO?.  A  classical  expression  (again)  found  only  m  St.  James  (ni.  8).  Comp. 
Is.  liv.  II,  "  tossed  with  tempest  ;"  'AKarao-Tao-ia,  iii.  16;  Luke  xxi.  9  ;  i  Cor.  xiv.  33,  etc. 
It  is  one  who  "  never  continueth  in  on2  stay  "  (Job  xiv.  2).  -/,-,•        n    << 

'  For  the  different  views  taken  of  this  verse  see  in/ra,  p.  380.  T/LavxaaOai  is  hterally  to 
boast."     Rom.  ii.  17,  etc.  ,  .       ,„  ■      ,  l-       .  e 

«  For  the  metaphor,  specially  suitable  to  the  bnef  hfe  of  flowers  m  the  scorchmg  heat  of 
Palestine,  see  Is.  xl.  6,  7  ;  Ps.  cii.  15 ;  Job  xiv.  2  ;  i  Pet.  i.  24  ;  Wisd.  11.  12,  "  Let  us  crown 
ourselves  with  rosebuds  before  they  be  withered  ;"  riches  are  no  "unwithenng  mhentance 
(i  Pet.  i.  4)  as  the  kingdom  of  God  is.  .       „.,      ,        ,     •  n    .  1       . 

»  The  aorist  tenses  show  us  the  whole  story,  so  to  speak.  The  kausl>n  is  u.sually  t.akcn  to 
mean  the  /cacftvi,  or  simoom,  as  in  Jonah  iv.  8  ;  the  '"ea.st  wind  "  of  Ezek.  xvii.  10  ;  xiv.  12  : 
"  the  wind  of  the  Lord  from  the  wilderness  "  of  Hos.  xiii.  15  ;  but  may  mean  merely  '  scorch- 
ing heat  ;  "  Matt.  XX.  12;  Luke  xii.  55.  ,    ,,,  .  «       •     i.    u    .  ,    1 

'"  MapaverJtreTai  only  in  Wisd.  ii.  8  and  Job  xv.  30  (LXX.).  jopetat?  is  the  best-supported 
reading,   and  alludes,  perhaps,   to  travels  for  purposes  of  gam,  etc.  (iv.  13).     (A,  iropiois, 

'  11  ivJjp— "  non  mollis  nee  effeminatus  sed  77>"  (Thos.  Aquin.). 
I'-i  There  is  no  special  reference  to  athletes  (Ps.  xxi.  3  :  Rev.  11.  10  ;xWisd.  v.  lO].      ^^ 
'3  The  "  He"  (as  in  ^S  A.  B)  is  more  emphatic  than  if  he  had  inserted      the  Lord,    and 
seems  to  show  how  early  the  J'almudic  method  of  reference  had  begun. 

'••  Amor  parit  patientiam  (Bengel).  ,„        ,  ,  x   ,.  .1 

'5  a7retpa(TTOs  occurs  here  only.  It  means  (i)  "  untempted,"  and  (2)  one  who  docs  not 
tempt."  Luther  follows  the  Vulgate  in  understanding  it  to  mean  'does  not  try  evil  men 
(intenUnor  maloruw  rst),  or  "  is  not  a  tempter  ofyvell  things'  (\Viclif]:  but  tins  .St.  James 
has  said  already.  It  seems  to  mean  "  has  nothing  to  do  with  evil  things,  and  thcrctorc  can- 
not tempt  men  to  evil.  fEcumenius  quotes  a  heathen  saying.  "  he  D.vme  neither  ■^""'-•r^ 
troubles  nor  causes  them  to  <,thers."  "  Why.  then,  is  it  said  that  (.od  did  tempt  Abraham 
Gen.  XIX.  3?  That  means  that  He  tried  Abraham,  not  Irom  evil  motives  to  an  evil  end,  tiut 
from  good  motives  to  a  good  end  "  (.Aug.). 


378  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

is  ever  tempted  when  he  is  being  drawTi  forth'  and  enticed  by  his  own  desire.' 
Then  the  desire,  having  conceived,  bears  sin  ;  but  sin,  when  full  grown,  brings 
forth  death  (13— 15).^ 

"  I3e  not  deceived,  my  brethren  beloved.  Every  good  giving  and  every  per- 
fect gift*  is  from  above,  descending  from  the  Father  of  the  Lights, ^  with  whom 
there  is  no  varving  nor  shadow  of  turning.*  Because  He  willed  it.  He  brought 
us  forth  by  the  word  of  truth  that  we  might  be  in  some  sense^  a  first  fruit  of  His 
creatures"  (16 — 18). 

"  Ye  know.*  my  brethren  beloved.  But  let  everyone  be  swift  to  listening, 
slow  to  speaking,'"  slow  to  wrath.  For  the  wrath  ot  a  man  {av8f}o<;)  worketh  not 
the  righteousness  of  God.  Therefore  laying  aside  all  filthiness  and  superfluity 
of  malice,  receive  in  meekness  the  implanted  word  which  is  able  to  save  your 
souls."  But  prove  yourselves  doers  of  the  word,  and  not  hearers  only,  mislead- 
ing yourselves  (Col.  ii.  4  ;  I^uke  .\i.  28).  For  if  any  one  is  a  hearer  of  the  word. 
and  not  a  doer,  this  person  is  like  a  mau'-^  contemplating  the  face  of  his  birth  in 

*  Prov.  XXX.  13  (LXX.).  The  word  may  be  used  of  "  dragging  a  prey  to  land,"  as  in  Hdt. 
ii.  76,  and  so  we  might  take  the  metaphor  to  be  one  from  fishing.  The  word  Se^ea^o/xefos 
may  also  mean  "enticing  with  a  bait,"  as  in  2  Pet.  ii.  14,  18  ;  >ven.  Mem.  ii.  i,  §  6.  IJut  the 
further  expansion  of  the  metaphor  shows  that  he  is  thinking  of  the  enticement  of  the  harlot 
Sense  (Pror.  vii.  16-23),  to  which  in  classical  and  Hellenistic  usage  the  words  are  equally  ap- 
plicable (Horn.  Ort'.  w.  294 ;  Arist.  PoliLv.  10;  Testam.  JCII.  Patriarch,  p.  702);  and 
especiallv  Plutarch's  De  Str.  Nu».  Vindict.  ;  "the  sweetness  of  desire,  like  a  bait  (fieAeop), 
entices  («{ eA»cet)  men." 

^ '"No  man  taketh  harm  but  by  himself;"  "passion  becomes  to  each  his  own  God ; " 
"  sibi cuigtcf  Deus  Jit  dira  cupula^'  (Virg.  JEn.  ix.  185). 

'  Milt/jn  expands  the  metaphor  into  an  allegory  in  Par.  Lost,  ii.  745-814.  Lange  points 
out  the  var>'ing  expressions  of  the  New  I'estament ;  "  Sin  brings  forth  death"  (James); 
"  death  is  the  wages  of  sin  "  (Paul)  ;  "  sin  is  death  "  (John). 

*  This  forms  in  the  original  a  perfect  hexameter,  except  that  the  last  syllable  of  6d<ris  i% 
leagtheued — 

vaaa  Socrt?  dyaflii  «ai  Ttojv  Siapriita  TeX.ei.ov. 
On   these  metrical  phrases   see  note  on   Heb.   xiL  14.     Sioprnxa  only  occurs  in   Rom.  v.  16. 
"  From  alx)vc"  (John  iii.  3,  7,  31  ;  xix.  11).     Bishop  Andrewes,  in  two  sermons  on  this  text, 
says  the  66m  ayoBi)  refers  to  the  gifts  of  eternal  life ;   the  dmpijfLa  TeAeioi'  the  treasures  laid  up 
lor  us  in  eternity. 

*  P.y  "'the  lights'''  is  meant  probably  "  the  heaventy  bodies,"  as  in  Ps.  cxxx^'i.  7  :  Jer.  iv. 
23,  called  in  Gen.  i.  14  (fxoo-T^pes,  which  is  metaphorically  applied  to  Christians  (John  v.  35  ; 
PhiL  ii.  15).  The  "Father"  then  means  the  Creator  (comp.  Job  xxxviii.  28,  "  Hath  the  rain 
a  father?").  5k)me  explain  it  of  angels  and  spirits,  and  of  Him  who  is  the  "  Light  of  the 
"world"  (John  ix.  5).  But  the  question  is  not  what  meaning  the  words  may  be  made  to  in- 
clude, but  what  meaning  they  originally  had. 

*  The  words  arc  curious — a-apoAAayij  ij  rpoB-Jjs  dn-oo-KiW/uia.  The  first  word  is  a  hafiax 
lrgotH£fujH  in  the  New  Testament  (but  see  2  Kings  i.v.  20,  LXX.),  and  has  been  understood 
to  be  a  technical  term  of  astronomy,  like  farallaj:.  But  in  Epictet.  i.  14  it  merely  means 
"ch.iniic"  even  in  an  astronomical  sentence  ;  and  Plotinus  speaks  of  "  a  change  (TrapaAAa-yij) 
of  days  to  nights."  It  seems,  however,  to  have  a  semi-technical  connexion  with  astronomy. 
'Kvoa^iaaiiM.  is  also  a  hapax  Ugometion,  and  Tpojrai  i^Ai'ov  means  "the  solstices"  (see  Job 
xxxviii.  33/.  Here,  however,  there  seems  to  be  a  general  allusion  to  the  changes  and  revolu- 
tions of  the  sun,  moon,  and  .stars  (Wisd.  vii.  17-19),  as  compared  with  the  sun  which  never 
sets.     Comp.  I  John  L  5,  "  (Jod  is  light,  and  in  Him  is  no  darkness  at  all ;  "  Ps.  cxxxix.  11. 

^  <i**PX'?*'-      'he  Tti'a  shows  that  he  is  using  a  new  metaphor. 

"  On  the  great  theological  miportance  of  this  verse— all  the  more  noticeable  because  the 
l-.pi-,tlc  is  predonnnantly  practical — see  infra,  p.  383. 

»  Ihe  true  reading  seems  to  Ije  to-re,  A,  B,  C  (Heb.  xii.  17  ;  Eph.  v.  5).  Its  very  abrupt- 
ness probably  cau.sed  the  variations  of  the  MSB. 

'"  Kccius.  V.  II  :  "  Be  swift  to  hear  ....  and  with  patience  give  answer;  "  "Thou  ha.st 
two  cars  and  one  mouth  "  ( Riickcrt).  ( Ecumenius  here  quotes  ttie  proverb  that  "  no  one  ever 
repented  of  having  jjceii  silent,"  and  every  one  will  be  reminded  of  the  proverb,  "  Speech  is 
fcilvcrn.  Silence  .s  Boldcn  "  (Prov.  xiii.  3,  etc.  ;  Eccl.  v.  2)— Philn  has  the  phrase,  "slow  to 
Unelitj,  NwiJt  to  injure."     '1  he  Jews  were  ever  ''slow  to  hear  '  (  Heb.  v.  11;  x.  25). 

//  IS  aWc,  for  It  IS  a  |wwer  of  (lod  (  Rom.  i,  16).  Without  it  they  are  unable,  whether  by 
outwarti  works  (as  I'harisees  .s;ud)  or  by  determination  of  will  (as  Sadducees  .said)  to  be 
^avcd.     On  tfi^vro^,  see  p.  384. 

"  ***<»«•  ^"n}c  have  referred  the  term  to  the  comparative  carelessness  of  men  in  looking  at 
inirrorsCi  Cor.  xui  12:  Wisd.  vu.  26;  Ecclus.  xii.  12),  but  it  is  doubUul  whether  St.  James 
intends  any  special  distinctiveness  in  tJic  word  (see  vers.  8-12) 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  379 

a  mirror.  For  he  contemplated  himself,  and  has  gone  away,'  and  immediately 
forgot  what  kind  of  person  he  was.  H/it  he  who  has  stoojied  down  to  gaze'-!  into 
a  perfect  law,  the  law  of  liberty, •*  and  has  stayed  io  gaze.'  proving  himself  not  a 
hearer  who  forgets,  but  a  doer  who  works,  he  shall  be  blessed  inhis  doing^  (19 
—25)- 

"  If  any  one  fancies  that  he  is  '  religious' «  while  he  is  not  bridling  his  tongue 
(iii.  2,  3),  but  is  deceiving  his  own  heart,  this  man's  religious  service  is  profitless. 
A  religious  service  pure  and  undefiled'  before  our  God  and  Father  is  this — to 
take  care  of  orphans  and  widows  in  their  affliction  (Ex.  xxii.  22 — 24  ;  Acts  vi.  1), 
to  keep  himself  unspotted  from  the  world  "  »  (26,  27). 

I  have  broken  the  chapter  into  brief  sections  to  indicate 
as  far  as  possible  the  transitions  of  thought.  Special  difficul- 
ties of  expression  are,  1  hope,  sufficiently  elucidated  in  the 
appended  notes,  and  the  very  literal  translation  will  show 
what  I  believe  to  be  the  best  reading  and  construction.  But 
there  are  one  or  two  general  points  in  the  chapter  which  re- 
quire notice. 

i.  It  will  be  observed  that  St.  James  begins  at  once  with 
the  subject  of  temptation,  using  the  word  in  its  broadest  sense 
of  all  forms  of  trial.  It  includes  both  outward  persecution — 
from  which  the  Churches  of  scattered  Jews,  whether  con- 
verted or  unconverted,  were  always  liable,  from  the  common 
hatred  which  Pagans  felt  for  them — and  those  inward  temp- 

1  ane\ri\v6ev,  per/.     The  tenses  make  the  image  more  graphic. 

2  The  true  meaning  of  the  word  will  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  Luke  xxiv.  12 — "  Stooping 
down  and  looking  in  ;"  Eccliis.  xiv.  23  ;  John  xx.  5,  11  ;  i  Pet.  i.  12  (see  the  note  on  that 
verse).  Doubtless  St.  James  thought,  in  passing,  of  the  Cherubim  bending  down  over  the 
Ark  as  though  to  gaze  continually  on  the  revelation  of  God's  will  in  the  moral  law.  See  on 
this  word  Coleridge  {Aids  to  KeJlectioU;  p.  15),  "A  more  happy  and  forcible  word  could  not 
have  been  chosen  to  express  the  nature  and  ultimate  object  of  reflection." 

3  "  Legum  servi  sunius  ut  liberi  esse  possimus"  (Cic).  We  have  seen  already  that  St. 
James's  ideal  of  the  Law  is  not  that  of  Moses  (Acts  xv.  10  ;  Gal.  v.  i,  but  comp.  Ps.  xix.  8-1 1), 
but  that  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (ii.  8  ;  v.  12  ;  John  viii.  32),  the  law  of  the  Spirit  (Rom. 
viii.  2),  the  law  of  faith  (Rom.  iii.  27). 

*  Notice  the  antithesis,  7rapa/cut/*as,  Trapafietva?,  ovk  aKpoarr;;  ejriArj(7/iio<rvi^S,  as  against 
Karevoriaev,  a7re\rikv6€i>,  errekdOeTo. 

s  "Ut  ipsa  actio  sit  beatitudo"  (Schneckenburger). 

*  0prj(r<ceia  means  ritual  service,  external  obvservance  ;  "gay  religions,  full  of  pomp  and 
gold  "  (Acts  xxvi.  5),  which  (as  we  see  from  Col.  ii.  18,  the  only  other  place  where  the  word 
oxurs  in  the  New  Testament)  have  a  perpetual  tendency  to  degenerate  into  superfluous  and 
S2lf-satisfying  human  ordinances  (e9eAo9pr)<r/ceia),  and  even,  to  use  the  bold  coinage  of  a  later 
writer,  e9e\oiTepi(j-(To6p7)(TKeia.  It  is  the  peril  and  disease  of  the  externally  virtuous — vice  cor- 
rupting virtue  itself  into  pride  and  intolerance.  Hence  the  0pij(T/co?  is  one  who  plumes  himself 
oil  his  outward  service.  This  paragraph  illustrates  the  "slowness  to  speak,"  as  the  last  did 
the  "  swiftness  to  hear."  Obtrusiveness  in  talk  is  a  natural  consequence  of  a  spurious  re- 
ligion. 

">  The  Jewish  notion  of  defilement  was  very  different  (John  xviii.  28  ;  Lev.  v.  3,  and  /ins- 
sim  ;  comp.  Ecclus.  xxxv.  14).  For  "  the  fatherless  and  widows"  (where  "  respect  of  per- 
sons "  is  also  alluded  to),  and  for  the  general  thought,  compare  Mark  vii.  20-33  ;  Luke  xi.  40. 

«  St.  James  would  feel  tWis  duty  all  the  more  keenly,  and  would  feel  that  tiiis,  and  not  the- 
performance  of  outward  religious  duties  was  what  (iod  really  desired,  because  the  day  hid 
been  when  he  too  was  of  the  world,  for  which  reason  the  world  which  hated  Christ  had  not 
hated  him  (John  vii.  7).  By  "  the  world"  is  here  meant  everything  in  the  world,  and  in  the 
worldly  life  which  tempts  to  sin  (i  Tim.  vi.  14).  With  this  thought  compare  John  -vvii.  15  ;  i 
Tim.  V.  22.  With  the  general  thought  of  the  paragraph  comp.  Kcclus.  xxxv.  2  :  "  He  that 
requiteth  a  good  turn,  ofTereth  fine  flour ;  and  he  that  giveth  alms,  sacrificeth  praise."  'I  he 
sima  thought  is  found  both  in  Scripture  (l)eut.  x.  12  ;  Ps.  xl.  7  ;  xxi.  17  ;  i  .Sam.  xv.  22  ;  Mic. 
vi.  6-9 ;  Hos.  vi.  6  ;  xii.  6,  etc  )  and  in  heathen  writers. 


380  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

tations  which  are  often  closely  connected  with  outward  cir- 
cumstances. St.  James  shows  his  readers  how  to  turn  these 
temptations  into  blessings,  by  making  them  a  source  of  patient 
endurance,  and  so  using  them  as  the  fire  which  purges  and 
tests  the  fine  gold.  For  the  Christian  should  aim  at  such 
perfection'  (i.  2 — 4). 

ii.  Now  for  perfection  he  needs  wisdom-  most  of  all;  and 
if  he  lacks  this  wisdom  he  has  only  to  ask  for  it  from  One 
whose  gifts  are  absolute  and  gracious  (i.  5). 

iii.  Vet  it  is  useless  to  ask  without  faith  in  Him  to  whom 
the  petition  is  addressed,  and  without  faith  that  it  will  be 
granted.  Such  faithless  prayers  can  only  arise  from  a  waver- 
ing disposition,  a  want  of  stability,  a  want  of  whole-hearted- 
ness,  a  dualism  of  life  and  aim  (i.  6 — 8). 

iv.  Then  comes  an  apparently  sudden  transition  of  exhor- 
tation to  rich  and  poor.'  That  the  transition  was  not  so 
sudden  in  the  mind  of  the  wTiter  is  shown  by  his  connecting 
particle.  "The  man  of  two  souls,"  he  says,  "is  restless  in 
all  his  ways;  but  let  the  humble  brother  rejoice."  The  un- 
expressed connexion  seems  to  be,  "Now,  what  is  the  cause  of 
this  spiritual  distraction  and  instability?  Does  it  not  arise 
from  worldliness?  Well,  ye  cannot  sei've  God  and  Mammon. 
If,  then,  any  brother  be  poor  and  humble,  let  him  rejoice  in 
his  exaltation.  For  if  he  take  it  rightly  his  earthly  humilia- 
tion is  his  true  dignity.  He  is  enjoying  the  beatitude  of 
poverty.  It  is  something  like  the  thought  expressed  so  tersely 
by  our  great  philosopher,''  "Prosperity  is  the  blessing  of  the 
Old  Testatment,  Adversity  is  the  blessing  of  the  New"  (i.  9). 

V.  "But  the  rich,"  he  adds,  "in  his  humiliation."  The 
meaning  of  these  words  is  not  clear.  It  has  even  been  sup- 
posed by  some  that  the  words  "rich"  and  "poor"  are  used  in 
this  Epistle  in  a  metaphorical  sense. ^      Another  discussion 


'The  Christian  aims  at  "  endurance,"  not  at  "  apathy,"  as  the  Stoic  did.  His  endurance 
has  a  Kublimer  origin,  a  milder  character,  a  greater  duration,  a  more  glorious  fruit"  (Van 
Oostcrzcc). 

..\«'''l"'' ^'•'^'"'^^  ^^  ^'^  ^'^'^^  ^^^  y^^'"''  ^^ows  how  deeply  the  Jews  needed  this  wisdom. 
NVis.lom  IS  justified  ofhcTcliil.lren"  (M:.tt.  xi.   19);— "and  she  abode  not  at  Jerusalem, 
liiit  with  the  Christians  wlio  tied  in  time  to  Pella." 

*  .So  in  Shcmoth  K.-ihha  (§  31,  /  129)  we  find,  "  Hlessed  is  the  man  who  stands  in  his 
tf»tJ>ta(ton  .•  for  there  is  no  man  whom  Ood  does  not  try.  He  tries  the  rich,  to  see  if  ihey 
will  oncn  tlicir  hands  to  the  poor  ;   He  tries  th^/oor,  to  sc^  if  th(jy  will  not  murmur,"  etc. 

•  I.anKc  thinks  that  by  '•  the  brethren  of  low  degree"  are  meant  Jews  and  Te%vish  Chris- 
iwns,  and  l,y  the  rich  tlie  (.entiles  ;  for,  he  says,  the  rich  lews  have  "always  been  kind  to  the 
poor.  1  thnik  I  have  already  met  this  difficulty.  It  is  su'rely  extravagrnt  to  say  that  "the 
nch  man  with  a  gold  ring  ami  splendid  garment  denotes  the  proud  Ebionitish  Jewish  Chris- 
tXMjaraMn^  /,„  ring  0/  the  Je.oish  Covenant  (!).  while  the  poor  man,  w^th  a  vile  sar- 
m!^''v  **""•;?  •  ^ ■?"•'"=  <-^'■';'"^'"  {Introd.  p.  27).  This  is  to  introduce  into  New  Te^sta- 
mciit  exegesis  fancies  borrowed  from  Lcssing  and  Swift. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  381 

turns  on  the  question  whether  l)y  "the  rich"  we  are  here  to 
understand  rrch  Christians,  or  rich  Jews  and  Gentiles.  1  feel 
convinced  that  the  words  are  to  he  understood  in  their  pri- 
mary meaning.  As  I  have  already  explained,  St.  James  is 
not  thinking  of  Gentiles  at  all,  and  is  drawing  no  marked  dis- 
tinction between  Jews  and  Christians.  A  further  (piestion  is, 
are  we  to  understand  this  phrase  hortatively  in  the  sense  of 
"but  let  the  rich  man  boast  in  his  humiliation,"  or  as  a  con- 
trast, "but  the  rich  man  rejoices  or  glories  in  that  which  is  in 
reality  his  humiliation"?'  In  the  one  case  it  is  an  exhorta- 
tion to  the  rich  man  as  to  what  he  ought  to  do;  in  the  other  a 
censure  upon  him  for  what  he  does.  Neither  interpretation  is 
without  difficulty,  but  on  the  whole  the  meaning  seems  to  be 
that  worldliness,  with  the  temptations  which  it  brings,  is  full 
of  dangers.  Poverty  and  riches  stand  in  God's  estimation  in 
reverse  positions.  Humble  poverty  is  true  wealth.  Pam- 
pered wealth  is  real  poverty.^  Let  the  poor  brother  glory  in 
the  beatitude  of  poverty;  it  is  a  gift  of  God.  The  rich 
brother,  then,  is  worse  off,  is  in  a  worse  position  than  he — his 
riches  are  his  humiliation  in  the  heavenly  order;  for  they  are 
a  temptation  to  which  he  is  only  too  liable  to  succumb;  they 
tend  to  make  him  more  of  a  worldling,  less  of  a  Christian. 
Such  views  belong  to  the  so-called  Ebionitism  of  St.  James. 
But  the  opinions  of  the  Ebionites  were  due  to  the  falsehood 
of  extremes.  Neither  is  wealth  in  itself  a  sin,  nor  poverty  in 
itself  a  virtue.  They  are  conditions  of  life  in  which  God  has 
placed  us,  each  liable  to  its  own,  and  each  -to  different  temp- 
tations. But  as  regards  those  days — perhaps  as  regards  all 
periods — riches  were  liable  to  severer  temptations  than  poverty. 
In  the  teaching  of  St.  James  we  recognise,  not  the  exaggera- 
tions of  Ebionitism,  but  the  impression  left  by  the  sermons 
iind  parables  of  Christ^  (i.  10). 

vi.  And  the  reason  why  the  rich  brother  should  glory  in 
the  humiliation  which  the  world  regards  as  his  enviable  supe- 
riority is  that  reason  which  Isaiah  had  so  exquisitely  expressed, 
and  to  which  St.  Peter  also  refers.*  It  is  the  transitoriness  of 
riches.'     Often,  even  in  this  brief  life,  they  make  themselves 

1  This  would  resemble  Phil.  iii.  19,  "  whose  glory  is  in  their  shame."  Compare  the  saying 
of  Pascal  about  man—"  Gloire  et  rebut  de  I'Univers,  s'il  se  vanle,  je  I'abaisse  ;  s'il  s'abaisse, 
je  le  vante."  ^  Matt.  v.  3.  •        t        u 

^  Matt,  xxiii.  12  ;  Luke  xiv.  11 :  x^'iii.  14.  The  commoner  view  of  the  clause  is  "Let  the 
rich  man  rejoice  whe7i  he  is  huviiliated  by  the  spoiling  of  his  goods"  (Heb.  x.  34).  But  (i) 
this  loss  of  wealth  happens  only  to  a  few.  (2)  He  is  throughout  addressing  "  rich  men,"  who 
are  in  the  full  Howcr  of  their  prosperity.      <  Is.  xl.  6  ;   i  Pet.  i.  24  (comp.  Matt.  vi.  30  ;  xni.  26). 

5  Some  refer  the  passage  chielly  to  reverses  in  life.  "The  rich  man,  overtaken  by  judg- 
ment, perishes  in  the  midst  of  his  doings  and  pursuits,  as  the  flower,  in  the  midst  of  its  bles- 
sings, falls  a  victim  to  the  scorching  heat  of  the  sun"  (Huther). 


^S2  TIIK    KARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

wings  and  fly  away.  But  they  must  always  pass  away  with  the 
fading  flower  of  life;  not  even  the  poorest  fragment  of  them 
can  be  held  by  the  relaxing  hand  of  death.  Is  that  a  con- 
dition to  glory  in,  which  Christ  showed  to  be  surrounded  with 
peril,  and  which  must  soon  become  like  a  withered  blossom  in 
a  dead  man's  hand?     (i.  ii). 

vii.  But  whether  our  trial  comes  in  the  form  of  wealth  or 
of  poverty  it  becomes  a  beatitude  if  it  works  in  us  the  spirit 
of  patient  endurance.  And  here  it  is  necessary  for  St.  James 
to  introduce  a  strong  caution.  The  word  which  he  has  used  for 
temptation  is  capable  of  two  meanings — trial  in  the  sense  of  a 
difficult  and  painful  test  {adversa pati)\  and  trial  in  the  sense 
of  strong  impulse  to  sin  (i/ialis  ad  defectionem  sollicitari).  In 
the  first  sense  it  comes  from  God;  it  is  a  part  of  His  provi- 
dential ordering  of  our  lives.  In  the  second  sense  it  by  no 
means  comes  from  God.^  When  a  man  pleads,  as  men  have  so 
often  done,  that  "God  has  made  them  so;"^  or  that  "the  flesh  is 
weak,"  or  that  "God  for  a  moment  deserted  them;"^  when 
they  say  that  they  have  done  wrong  because  they  could  not 
do  otherwise;*  when  they  contend  that  each  man  is  practically 
no  better  than  an  automaton,  and  that  his  actions  are  the  in- 
evitable— and  therefore  irresponsible — result  of  the  conditions 
by  which  he  is  surrounded — they  are  transferring  to  God  the 
blame  of  their  misdoings.  "The  foolishness  of  man  perver- 
teth  his  way,  and  his  heart  fretteth  against  the  Lord.""  The 
doctrine  of  fatalism  is  but  a  poor  and  false  excuse  for  crime. ^ 
When  passively  accepted  it  paralyses  every  nerve  of  moral 
effort;  when  it  takes  the  form  of  materialism,  and  poses  as  the 
final  result  of  science,  it  lays  the  axe  at  the  root  of  every 
motive  by  which  men  rise  to  the  dignity  of  free  and  moral  beings. 

«  The  history  of  temptation,  says  Bede.  '*  is  (i)  Suggestion  ;  (2)  Delight  ;  3)  Consent. 
Su^gt-stii  .11  IS  of  the  enemy,  delight  and  consent  from  our  o\v  n  frailty.  If  the  birth  of  a  wrong 
action  follows  the  delight  of  the  heart,  the  enemy  leaves  us  as  a  victor,  and  we  are  liable  to 
/V*  .  " .  '*  ^"^'  **  ^^^  mother  of  sin,  sin  the  mother  of  death,  the  sinner  the  parent  of  both  " 
(Macknight). 

..."  ^.'t  ^-"i"'  deals  with  this  question— "Why  doth  He  yet  find  fault?  For  who  hath  resisted 
His  will?"  (Rom.  ix.  19.) 

*  •'  Seems  there  any  recess?     It  is  we  forsake  Him  ;  not  He  us  (Jer.  ii.  17)  "   (Bishop  An- 

'Ik  *  ^L*^  unhappy  Henry  II.,  shortly  before  his  death,  passionately  exclairted  to  God,  "  Since 
Jhoii  h.-ist  taken  from  me  the  town  I  loved  best  ...  I  will  have  my  revenge  on' Thee  too.  I 
will  rob  I  hcc  of  ih.-jt  thing  Thou  lovcst  most  in  me"  (.see  Green's  Hist.  0/  E71-I.  I.  p.  181). 
I  Merc  cm  be  little  doubt  that  St  James  had  in  his  mind  a  magnificent  passage  of  Ecclu.s.  xv. 
V'.'i?'  i"'*"-*'  "u'  .  ."•  .'  '^  "  Hi'ough  the  Lord  that  I  fell  a\vay  : '  for  thou  oughtcst  not  to 
U..  thcilmigs  th.-it  He  hateth.  .Say  not  thou  'He  hath  caused  me  to  err,'  for  He  hath  no 
need  ol  the  sinful  m.in.  .  .  .He  hath  set  fire  and  water  before  thee  :  stretch  forth  thy  hand 
unto  whether  thou  wilt.  Before  man  is  life  and  death,  and  whether  him  liketh,  shall  be  given 
'""Vi.  r       I-  e     T  ,  sProv.  xix.  3. 

»t  wa»  familur  to  .St.  James,  for,  as  Josephus  says,  it  was  a  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees 
{.hit/,  xvui.  I,  I  3;  B.  J.  a.  8,  §  14). 


THE    EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  7,8^ 

Men  become  the  children  of  God  by  obedience  to  His  laws, 
resulting  not  from  necessity,  but  choice.  And  so  St.  James 
gives  the  true  genesis  of  sin.  It  springs  from  lust — desire — 
the  yctscrha-rd,  or  evil  impulse,  which  plays  so  large  a  part  in 
later  Jewish  literature.  This  is  to  each  soul  the  harlot-temp- 
tress which  draws  him  forth  from  the  safe  shelter  of  innoc- 
ence, entices  him,  and  bears  the  evil  offspring  of  committed 
sin.  But  the  bad  genealogy  ends  not  there.  Sin,  too,  grows 
to  maturity,  and  the  offspring  of  her  incestuous  union  is 
death  (i.  12 — 15). 

viii.  No,  God  is  not  the  author  of  evil;  it  is  only  every 
good  gift  which  comes  from  Him.  "God  is  always  in  the 
meridian.'"  He  dwells  in  the  </)ws  ai/€o-7r€poi/,  in  the  light 
whereof  there  is  no  eventide,  the  sun  whereof  knows  no  tropic. 
No  darkness  can  flow  from  the  fountain  of  that  unchanging 
Sun,  which  is  not  liable  to  the  parallax  and  eclipses  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  which  He  has  made.'*  And  then,  in  one 
singularly  pregnant  clause  which — although  in  this  respect  it 
stands  somewhat  isolated — shows  how  little  the  practical  ten- 
dency of  the  author  was  dissevered  from  deep  dogmatic  in- 
sight, he  tells  us  of  God's  viost  perfect  gift  to  us.  He  tells  us 
that  we  need  a  new  life;  that  God  by  one  great  act  has  be- 
sto^ved  it  upon  us;  that  this  act  sprang  from  His  own  free  will 
and  choice;^  that  the  instrument  of  this  new  birth  was  the  word 
of  truth, ^  the  Divine  revelation  of  God  to  man,  which,  of 
course,  requires  faith  in  them  that  hear  it;  that  the  result  of 
this  new  birth  is  our  dedication  as  "the  first  fruits  of  a  sacri- 
ficial gift'"  which  shall  only  be  completed  with  the  offering  up 

J  Wetstein. 

2  "Though  the  lights  of  heaven  have  their  parallaxes,  yea  'the  angels  of  heaven  He  fonnd 
not  steadfastness  in  them'  (Job  iv.  18)  ;  yet  for  (iod,  He  is  subject  to  none  of  them.  He  is 
'  Ego  sum  qui  sum  '  (Ex.  iii.  14),  that  is,  saith  Malachi,  '  J^gv  Deus  et  tion  mutor'  (iMal.  lii. 
6).  We  are  not  what  we  were  awhile  since,  what  we  shall  be  awhile  after,  scarce  what  we 
are  :  for  every  moment  makes  us  vary.  With  God  it  is  nothing  so.  He  is  that  He  is  ;  He  is 
and  changeth  not"  (Bishop  Andrewes,  Serm.  iii.  374:  John  viii.  58).  ^^ 

3  God  is  the  cause  of  His  own  mercy.     "'  Unde  sequitur  natnrale  esse  Deo  benefacere 
(Calvin).     See  John  i.  13  ;   i  Pet.  i.  23.     ^ovXr\0e\<;,  "  volurtate  amantissima,  libernma,  puris- 
.sima,  foecundissima  "  (i  John  i.  13  ;  "i  Pet.  i.  3).     'ATre*cv7/o-e»',   the  antithesis  to  the  airoKuet 
of  sin,  in  ver.  17,  "  Ipse  Deus  Patris  et  matris  loco  est "  (Bengel)  (Rom.  vm,  15  ;  Gal.  in. 
26 ;  I  Pet.  i.  23).  .  . 

*  John  -xvii.  17,  "  Sanctify  them  by  Thy  tnith.  Thy  word  is  Truth."  i  Pet.  i.  23,  "  H:ivmg 
been  bom  again  by  the  word  of  the  Living  God.  "  It  is  the  equivalent  to  the  G<ispel  (2  Tim. 
ii.  15  ;  Eph.  i.  13).  "The  lying  word  of  the  .serpent  has  corrupted  us,  but  the  true  word  of 
God  makes  us  good  again"  (Luther).  Here  and  elsewhere,  some  (e.g.  Athanasuis)  give  to 
"  the  Word"  its  .specific  Johannine  sense,  and  interpret  it  of  Chnst,  the  Divine  Logos.  No 
doubt  it  may  be  ma^te  to  bear  this  meaning  in  this  and  many  other  passages  ;  but  as  this  let- 
ter was  addressed  to  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  of  whom  many  had  no  Alexandrian  training 
or  Alexandrian  sympathies,  the  question  is,  (i)  Would  they  so  have  understood  it?  and,  there- 
fore, (2)  Did  St.  James  intend  it  so  to  be  understood  ?  _  . 

5  "  First-fruit"  (see  Lev.  xxiii.  10  ;  Deut.  xxvi.  2  ;  i  Cor.  xv.  22;  xvi.  15  ;  Rev.  xiv.  4). 
Christ  is  the  true  first-fruit,  and  then  we  in  Him  (Rom.  viii.  19-22).  See  a  valuable  note  ol 
Wiesinger,  who  was  the  first  to  call  due  attention  to  the  depth  and  importance  of  this  verse. 


3S4  TIIF-    KARLV    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  all  God's  creatures.  Thus  in  one  brief  sentence  he  concen- 
trates many  solemn -truths,  and  even  by  the  one  word,  "of 
His  own  will"  {/Siw^-qOeU),  he  repudiates  alike  the  dangerous 
fatalism  of  the  Pharisees,  and  the  arrogant  assertion  of  the 
Sadducees  that  salvation  lies  within  the  power  of  our  own  un- 
aided will  (i.  16—18). 

ix.  They  know  this;  but  let  them  apply  it — let  them  listen 
to  this  word  of  truth,  hearing  more,  speaking  less,  wrangling 
not  at  all.  Passionate  fanaticism  does  not  help  forward  God's 
righteousness.  It  deceives  itself  when  it  brings  into  God's 
service  that  impure  mixture  of  human  evil.^  The  Gospel  is 
meant  to  be  used  for  our  own  sanctification,  not  to  be  abused 
to  quarrelsomeness  with  others.  God's  word,  implanted  in 
the  heart,^  is  powerful  to  save,  but  the  condition  of  its  power 
is  its  meek  reception.  It  requires  steady,  earnest  contem- 
plation, not  a  mere  hasty  passing  gaze.  There  were  many, 
both  Jews  and  Christians,  who  were  absorbed  in  outward  ser- 
vice'— who  were  content  with  endless  ablutions  and  purifica- 
tions, and  not  with  what  is  true,  pure,  unspotted,  and  unde- 
filed;  who  made  long  prayers,  and  yet  devoured  widows' 
houses.  But  all  service  is  fruitless  if  it  does  not  lead  a  man 
to  refrain  from  bitter  words.  The  only  pure  and  perfect  ritual 
is  active  love,*  and  a  freedom  from  "the  contagions  of  the 
world's  slow  stain. "^ 

He  proceeds,  in  the  second  chapter,  to  rebuke  the  respect 
of  persons,'  the  worldly  partialities,  which  are  so  alien  to  "the 
faith  (;f  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  the  glory.  "^  That 
faith  teaches  before  all  things  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  man.     Since  in  God's  sight  all  are  equal — 


*  "  Purius  sine  ira  fit"  (Kengel).  There  is  always  a  germ  of  the  atheistical  in  the  heat  of 
fanaticism  (Nitsch),  as  in  Jonah's,  "I  do  well  to  be  angry."  Lange  observes  that  Smieon 
and  Levi,  the  ancestors  of  the  Jews  in  fanaticism,  were  disapproved  by  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxiv. 
49),  but  afterwards  upheld  as  patterns  (Judith  ix.  20). 

'  Perhaps  an  allusion  to  the  Parable  of  the  Sower,  and  so  parallel  with  Matt.  xiii.  23.  The 
word  fM<^VTOs  only  occurs  in  Wisd.  xii.  10.  In  classic  Greek  it  means  also  •'•innate,"  but 
this  d<>cs  not  furnish  so  simple  a  meaning,  though  it  may  be  compared  with  such  passages  as 
Col.  ii^  16,  "as  ye  have  received  Christ,  so  walk  ye  in  Him." 

'  See  Dr.  Mozlr.-y's  admirable  sermon  on  the  Pharisees.  "Qui  crassiora  vitia  exuenmt, 
huic  morlM)  sunt  ut  phirimum  obnoxii  "  (Calvin).  4  Comp.  Tobit  i.  16,  17. 

*  "The  outward  service  (0p7j(r»c«ia)  of  ancient  religion,  the  rites,  ceremonies,  and  ceremo- 
nial vestments  of  the  old  law,  had  morality  for  their  substance.  They  were  the  letter  of  which 
tnorahty  was  the  spirit ;  the  enigma  of  which  morality  was  ihe  meaning.  But  morality  itself 
IS  the  service  and  ceremonial  [cullus  exterior,  Opr^aKeia) of  ihi:  Christian  religion"  (Coleridge, 
/Ittfx  to  Kejtectioti,  Aph.  xxiii. ). 


•Curiously  enough  the  Talmud  says,  "  God  is  a  respecter  of  persons,"  Num.  vi.  26  (Bera- 
cholh.  f.  20,  /-). 

'  Lit  "of  our  Ixjrd  Jesus  Christ,  of  the  glory."  Bengel  takes  the  two  words  in  apposition 
—  ut  ipse  Lhrtstus  Uuatur^  if  fiofa,  Cloria^  'Jhe  Shechinah  was  a  Jewish  name  for  the 
McfMiiah,  but  It  IS  better,  as  m  the  M  V.,  to  understand  it  as  "the  lA)rd  of  the  glory"  (comp. 
John  xyii.  5).     Ihe  title  here  miplies  the  utter  obliteration,  by  comparison,  of  petty  earthly 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  385 

since  in  the  eye  of  His  Church  the  greatest  princess  |s  but 
"this  woman,"  and  the  proudest  emperor  but  "this  man" — 
was  it  not  most  unworthy  to  thrust  oppressive  disparities  into 
prominence  in  a  wrong  place  by  ushering  the  gold-ringed 
man'  in  the  bright  dress  into  the  best  seat  in  the  synagogue,'"' 
while  they  made  the  squalidly  dressed  pauper"'  stand  any- 
where, or  thrust  him  down  into  a  seat  on  the  "floor.  When  ye 
acted  thus,  "did  ye  not  ^/(^/z^^/ in  yourselves,^  and  did  ye  not  show 
wicked  reasonings  as  judges?' '  It  shows  doubt  to  act  as  though 
Christ  had  never  promised  His  kingdom  to  the  poor,  rich  in 
faith  ;^  and  wicked  reasonings  to  argue  mentally  that  the  poor 
must  be  less  worthy  of  honour  than  the  rich.  It  is  the  evil 
schism  in  the  heart  which  leads  to  this  evil  judgment  in  the 
life.  And  was  not  this  a  strange  method  of  judging,  when  \-\ 
was  the  rich  who  played  the  lord  over  them,  dragged  them 
into  law-courts,^  and  blasphemed  the  fair  name  by  which  they 
were  named?^  It  were  nobler  to  fulfil  the  royal  law,®  "Love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself,"  and  so  to  treat  all,  whether  rich  or 
poor,  with  equal  courtesy.  Not  to  act  thus  is  sin.  They  must 
not  regard  such  sin  as  unimportant.  There  is  in  God's  law  a 
uniform  solidarity,  and  one  God  made  all  the  law.  To  break 
one  commandment  is  to  break  all,*^  for  it  is  to  violate  the 
principle  of  obedience,  just  as  "it  matters  not  at  what  particu- 


1  The  ostentation  of  gold  rings  was  a  fashion  of  this  epoch,  and  Roman  fops  wore  them 
even  inconveniently  large  (Juv.  Sat.  i.  28,  30 ;  Mart.  xi.  60),  six  on  each  finger.  Lucian 
{Sojnn.  12)  speaks  of  wearing  sixteen  heavy  rings.  "All  fingers  are  loaded  with  rings" 
(Plin.  H.  N.  xxxiii.  6). 

2  "^  synagogue"  is,  on  the  whole,  the  best  supported  reading  (X,  1^.  C).  The  passage 
is  not  a  mere  rebuke  to  "  sexton  rudeness."  It  illustrates  faithless  partiality  by  a  common 
instance,  and  this  desire  for  prominence  was  largely  developed  among  the  Jews  (Matt,  xxiii. 
6).  Christians  probably  used  Jewish  synagogues  (as  St.  Paul  did)  as  long  as  they  were  per- 
mitted to  do  so. 

3  No  doubt  "  gold  rings  "  and  squalid  apparel  (Zech.  iii.  3,  4  ;  Rev.  xxii.  11)  may  be  used 
symbolically,  but  to  understand  this  passage  as  an  allegory  of  Jewish  exclusiveness  towards 
the  Gentiles  (as  Lange  does),  is  very  farfetched.     Notice  the  picturesque  antitheses  — 

You — sit — here — honourably  (near  the  coffer  which  held  the  I-aw). 
Yoic — stafid — thei^ — under  my  footstool  (out  of  sight  and  hearing,  near  the  door). 
Even  in  courts  of  law  the  Jewish  rule  was  that  (to  show  the  perfect  impartiality  of  the  law) 
both  suitors,  whether  rich  or  poor,  should  sit,  or  both  stand. 

4  Si€Kpi9rjT€.  "  Doubt"  is  the  ordinary  meaning  of  fiiaxpiVo/xai,  as  in  i.  6  ;  and  there  is 
no  reason  to  change  it  here  into  "make  diflerences,  or  judge,"  etc.  (Matt.  xxi.  21 ;  Acts  x. 
20  ;  Rom.  iv.  20,  etc.). 

'■>  Matt.  v.  3  ;  Luke  vi.  20.  «  Acts  vii.  12  ;  xvii.  12  ;  xviii.  5  ;  xix.  38. 

''  Literally  "which  was  invoked  over  you"  (Deut.  x.xviii.  10,  etc.  ;  Jer.xiv.  9;  Am.  ix. 
12  ;  Heb.  xi.  16).  i.e.,  the  name  of  Christ.  Christians  were  called  oi  XpitTTOu  (i  Cor.  iii.  23). 
Nominal  Christians,  however  rich,  could  hardly  have  ventured  to  "blaspheme,"  or  "speak 
injuriously  of,"  the  name  of  Chiist.  St.  James  must  be  passing  in  thought  to  rich  Jews,  Sad- 
ducean  oppressors,  etc.  (Acts  iv.  i,  6,  v.  17),  though  he  may  include  the  conduct  of  rich 
Christians  which  cause//  Christ's  name  to  be  blasphemed  among  the  Gentiles,  as  the  Jews 
caused  God's  name  to  be  (Rom.  ii.  24  ;  comp.  2  Sam.  xii.  14). 

»  A  royal  law,  because  tlie  best  of  all  laws— a  king  of  laws.  "  Love  is  the  fulfilment 
{7r\Tjpu)fJitx.)  of  the  Law"  (Rom.  xiii.  10). 

"  "He  who  observes  hut  one  precept,  secures  for  himself  an  advocate  (Parklit.  or  Para- 
clete), and  he  who  commits  one  sin  procures  for  himself  an  accuser"  (Pirke  Avoth,  iv.  15). 

2.S 


386 


THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


lar  point  a  man  breaks  his  way  out  of  an  enclosure,  if  he  is 
forbidden  to  go  out  of  it  at  all.'"  Every  separate  command- 
ment has  the  same  Divine  source.  The  sum  total  of  all  com- 
mandments is  that  law  of  liberty'  by  which  we  shall  be  judged. 
That  judgment  shall  be  merciless  to  the  merciless.'  And 
then  he  adds,  with  an  emphasis  all  the  more  forcible  from  its 
brevity  and  abruptness:  "Mercy" — whether  in  the  heart  of 
God  or  of  man— "glories  over  judgment'"  (ii.  i — 13). 

The  passage  that  follows  is  the  famous  passage  about  just- 
inc.ation  by  works: — 

"  What  is  the  advantage,  my  brethren,  if  any  say  that  he  has  faith,  but  hath 
networks?'^  Is  the  faith  able  to  save  him  ?  "  But  if  a  brother  or  a  sister  be 
naked,  and  lacking  the  day's  food,  and  one  of  you  should  say,  '  Go  in  peace  ;  ^ 
warm  yourselves  and  feed  yourselves,'  but  ye  give  them  not  the  necessaries  of 
the  body,  what  is  the  advantage  ?»  So  also  faith,  if  it  have  notM'orks,  is  dead  in 
itself."  Yea,  someone  may  say'"  [quite  fairly],  'Thou  hast  faith  and  I  have 
works.  Show  me  thy  faith  without  the  works' — which  you  cannot  do — '  and  I,' 
who  do  not  pretend  to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  such  a'  faith,  '  will,'  very  easily, 
'  show  thee  my  faith  by  my  works  '  "  (ii.  14 — 18). 


'  "A  garment  is  torn  though  you  only  take  away  one  piece  of  it ;  a  harmony  in  music  is 
spoiled  if  only  one  voice  be  out  of  tune  "  (Starke), 

2  .St.  James  is  thinking  of  the  free  service  of  the  will  to  Christ's  pure  moral  law,  not  of  the 
law  "  which  gendereth  to  bondage,"  and  enforces  incessant  restrictions  on  unwilling  souls 
(Gal.  iv.  10,  24),  which  was  a  yoke  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  had  been  able  to  bear 
(Acts  XV.  10).  3  Matt.  vii.  i. 

••  This  is  a  great  law  of  the  moral  kingdom.  It  applies  alike  to  God  and  to  men.  'Tis 
mishticst  in  the  mightiest.  It  is  the  reason  why  Christian  universality  is  belter  than  Judaising 
c.xclusiveness  ;  why  the  geniality,  love,  and  brightness  of  the  Gospel  is  better  than  the  gloomy 
hatred  of  the  Talmtid  ;  why  tolerance  is  better  than  the  Inquisition  ;  why  philanthropy  is 
nobler  than  sensual  egotism  (see  Lange,  p.  78). 

*  Ciimp.  ov  yap  tK/)etA^<rei  rtva  to  Ae'yeiv  aWa  to  -tTOuly '  e<  jravrbs  ovv  rpoTrou  KaKiav 
ipyiov  xpda  (Clem.  //ow.  viii.  7). 

"  Not  if  it  be  the  faith  that  .St.  James  has  in  view,  which  is  here  merely  a  theoretically 
ortluiiiox  belief ,  not  a  intal  faith.  .Such  a  faith  cannot  save  such  a  man.  Vital  faith  car- 
ries in  itstlf  the  animating  principle  from  which  works  must  emanate,  The  whole  argument 
is  aimed  at  those  Antinomians  who  said,  "  If  you  have  faith,  it  matters  little  how  you  live" 
(Jcr.  in  Mich.  iii.  5). 

'  Such  a  parting  benediction  would,  without  some  accompanying  help,  be  as  incongruous  a 
mockery  as  Claudius's  reply  ai"  Avete  vos"  to  the  gladiators'  "  M oritur i  te  salutavtus" 
(Judg.  xviii.  6;  2  Kings  xv.  9;  Lk.  vii.  50;  viii.  48).  Similarly,  Plautus  has  "Of  what  use 
in  your  l)cncvolent  language  if  your  help  is  dead  ?  "  {EJ>idic.  i.  2,  13).  ^ 

"  St.  James  uses  an  illustration  of  what  faith  leads  to,  which  he  borrows  from  the  teaching 
of  Christ  (Matt.  xxv.  35-46). 

"  Just  as  the  compassion  is  dead  and  useless  if  it  be  that  of— 

"  'I'he  sluggard  Pity's  vision-weaving  tribe, 
Who  sigh  for  wretchedness  yet  shun  the  wretched. 
Nursing  in  some  delicious  solitude 
Their  dainty  loves  and  slothful  sympathies" — (Coleridge.) 

»o  faith  JR  dead  and  useless  if  it  do  not  work  by  love.  "  No  spirit,  if  no  work  {Spectrum  est, 
turn  sf>tritui) ;  a  flying  shadow  it  is ;  a  spirit  it  is  not,  if  work  it  do  not.  Having  wherewith 
to  do  Rcxxl.  if  you  ili.  it  not,  talk  not  of  faith,  for  you  have  no  faith  in  you  if  you  have  where- 
with to  sliow  itand  show  it  not"  (15p.  Andrewes). 

'"  'AAA'  «p«I  T19  is  something  in  St.  Paul's  manner  (i  Cor.  xv.  35  ;  Rom.  ix.  19).  The  in- 
terlocutor is  not  here,  however,  an  objector,  but  a  (Jentile  Christian,  who  makes  a  perfectly 
true  cniicism  of  the  worihlessness  of  an  idle  orthodoxv  (see  'I'ert.  De  Punit.  5).  "  Faith." 
«ays  I.uthcr,  "  is  the  mother  who  gives  birth  to  the  virtues  as  her  children."  And  St.  Paul 
presses  the  Ramc  truth  quite  as  clearly  as  St.  James  (Rom.  ii.  13). 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  387 

Assuming  that  the  SoHfidian — the  behever  in  the  possibihty 
of  an  abstract  faith  which  can  show  nu  works  as  an  evidence 
of  its  existence — is  thus  refuted,  St.  James  proceeds  to  refute 
him  still  farther: — **  Thou  believest  that  God  is  one.'"  It  was 
the  proud  boast  of  the  Jew,  who,  among  all  the  nations  of 
antiquity,  gloried  in  being  a  monotheist. 

"  Excellent  so  far  ;  the  demons  also  believe  and  sliudder.^  But  wilt  thou 
recognise,  O  vain  man, ^  that  faith  apart  from  works  is  idle?'  Abraham,  our 
father — was  he  not  justified  by  works,  when  he  offered  up  Isaac  his  son  upon  the 
altar?  5  Dost  thou  see  that  faith  wrought  with  his  works,*  and  by  works  the 
faith  was  perfected  ?  ^  And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled  which  says,«  '  But  Abra- 
ham believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  he  was 
called  the  Friend  of  God. »  Ye  see  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
faith  only.  10  But  likewise  also  Rahab,  the  harlot,"  was  she  not  justified  by 
works,  when  she  received  the  messengers,  and  hastily  sent  them  forth  by  an- 
other way  ?  For  even  as  the  body  apart  from  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  also  faith 
apart  from  works  is  dead.''^^ 

Leaving  the  theology  of  this  remarkable  passage  for  sub- 
sequent discussion, ^^  in  order  not  to  break  the  thread  of  the 
Epistle,  we  proceed  to  the  next  chapter. 

It  was  natural  that  those  who  had  seized  a  Shibboleth,  of 


1  2u,  emphatic ;  thou,  as  distinguished  from  the  heathen.  The  Jews  had  learnt  Credere 
Dewn,  and  Credere  Deo,  but  not  (according  to  St.  Augustine's  distinction)  Credere  in 
Deuiit.  1'his  shows  that  St.  James  is  thinking  of  some  sort  of  verbal  orthodoxy,  not  of  specific 
Christian  faith.  I'he  Unity  of  God  was  tiie  very  first  and  most  important  belief  of  Judaism 
The  first  line  of  the  Talmud  begins  with  discussing  it;  it  was  daily  repeated  in  the  S/iemA 
(Deut.  vi.  4),  to  which,  as  to  all  their  observances,  the  Jews  attached  most  extravagant  virtue. 
Thus  they  said  that  the  fires  of  (iehenna  would  be  cooled  for  him  who  repeated  it  with  atten- 
tion to  its  ver\'  letters.  To  this  they  attached  Hab.  ii.  4.  All  the  fine  things  which  they  called 
kafxirdes  (DT"l£n)-  the  "Garden,"  or  "Paradise,"  turned  on  the  Unity  of  God.  Akhiva 
was  supremely  blessed  because  he  died  uttering  the  word  "  C«^"  {see  infra,  p.  405). 

2  'I'his  unique  and  unexpected  word  {<f>pi(Taovai,  fiorrescunt)  comes  in  with  great  rhetor- 
ical and  ironic  force.  It  explains  the  horror  of  physical  antipathy.  "Vox  the  yhci,  see  RIatt. 
viii.  29  :  Mark  ix.  20,  26.  "  The  sarcasm  lies  in  the  fact  itself.  Formally,  it  only  flashes  out 
in  the  splendid  Kai"  (Lange). 

3  The  Hebrew  Np""),  Raca  (Matt  v.  22).  Some  think  that  this  objurgation  is  aimed  at 
St.  Paul  !  Apostles  did  not  speak  of  each  other  in  the  language  of  modern  religious  contro- 
versy (see  Pirke  Avoth,  i.  17).  *  ^.pyij,  B.  C. 

*  St.  Paul  does  not  refer  to  this  act,  which  is  indeed  only  alluded  to  in  Heb.  xi.  17  (and 
VVisd.  X.  5),  but  to  the  faith  which  Abraham  had  shown  forty  years  before. 

^  "  O/erosa/uii  nfln  oiiosa"  {C^lWiu). 

''  *'  Faith  aided  in  the  completion  of  the  work,  and  the  work  aided  in  the  completion  of  the 
faith"  (Lange).  "His  faith  \\?is, completed,  not  that  it  had  been  imperfect,  but  that  it  was 
consummated  in  the  exercise"  (Luther). 

8  Says  elseivhere.  Gen.  xv.  6  (before  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac). 

*  Is.  xli.  8.  In  Gen.  xxv.  9,  this  clause  seems  to  have  occurred  in  some  readings  (Ewald, 
Die  Sendschrciben,  ii.  225).  Abraham  is  still  known  through  the  East  as  fil  Khalil  Allah 
("the  Friend  of^God"),  and  hence  Hebron  is  called  Kl  Khalil.  Dean  Plumptrc  points  out 
the  curious  fact  that  the  title  occurs  neither  in  the  Hebreiv  nor  in  the  LXX.,  and  is  first 
applied  to  Abraham  by  Philo  {De  resi/>.  Noe,  c.  n).     _ 

1*^  .St.  Paul  had  adduced  Abraham  as  a  proof  of  justification  by  faith,  not  hy  legalism.  St. 
James  adduces  him  as  an  example  of  justification  by  the  works  'ivhich  spring  front  faith, 
not  by  orthodoxy. 

'    This  second  example  is  chosen  because  he  wishes  to  prove  the  unity  of  faith  in  Jews  and 
Genfiies,  by  two  examples  of  faith  manifested  by  works.     Abraham  was  a  man,  a  Ilebrew,  a 
Prophet;   Rahab  a  woman,  a  Canaanite,  a  harlot;   yet  both  were  justified  [i.e.,  shown  to  be 
righteous  in  the  moral  ■se^wic)  by  works  which  sprang  from  their  faith  (Heb.  xi.  31). 
,  13  ii.  19-26.  13  See  infra.,  pp.  402-415. 


388 


THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


which  they  neither  fathomed  the  full  depth  nor  even  rightly 
understood  the  superficial  meaning,  should  endeavour  to  en- 
force it  upon  others  with  irate,  obtrusive,  and  vehement  dog- 
matism. This  "itch  of  teaching,"  this  oracular  egotism,  is 
the  natural  result  of  vanity  and  selfishness  disguising  them- 
selves under  the  cloak  of  Gospel  proselytism.  With  all  such 
men  words  take  the  place  of  works,  and  dogmatising  conten- 
tiousness of  peace  and  love.  Therefore  he  warns  them  against 
being  many  teachers' — self-constituted  ministers  —  "other 
peoples'  bishops"'— persons  of  that  large  class  who  assume 
that  no  incompetence  is  too  absolute  to  rob  them  of  the  privi- 
lege of  infallibility  in  laying  down  the  law  of  truth  for  others. 
*  'My  brethren,  do  not  become  many  teachers,^  being  well  aware 
that  we  (teachers)  shall  receive  a  severer  judgment  than 
others,"  since  our  responsibility  is  greater  than  theirs.  "For 
in  many  respects  we  stumble,  all  of  us."'  Speech  is  the  in- 
strument of  all  teachers.  If  any  man  stumbles  not  in  word, 
he  is  a  perfect  man,'  able  to  bridle  also  the  whole  body.  Sins 
of  speech  are  so  common,  the  temptations  to  them  are  so  uni- 
versal, that  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  perfect  wisdom 
and  self-control  of  him  who  has  acquired  an  absolute  immu- 
nity from  these.  For  how  great  is  the  power  of  the  tongue! 
how  evil  its  depravity,  untameableness,  and  duplicity!  .  It  is 
like  the  little  bridles  which  rule  the  horse,  like  the  little  helms 
that  steer  the  great  ships.  It  is  like  the  spark  which  kindles 
a  conflagration  in  the  forest.^     Yes,  the  tongue — that  world 

'  Any  authorised  person  might  speak,  either  in  the  synagogue  or  the  early  Christian  as- 
sembly (i  Cor.  xiv.  26-34).  The  ordinary  readers  and  preachers  were  not  clergy  at  all.  The 
eager  seizure  of  a  party  watchword  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  mere  prating. 

2  dAAoTpioen-io-jcojroi  (i  Pet.  iv.  15). 

'  Malt,  xxiii.  8-10.  '•  Hut  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi,  for  one  is  your  guide — even  Christ ;  but 
all  ye  arc  brethren."  "Love  the  work,  but  strive  not  after  the  honour  of  a  teacher"  (Pirke 
Avoth,  i.  10). 

*  St.  James  would  no  more  have  thought  of  claiming  immunity  from  sin  than  St.  Paul 
(Phil.  iii.  12)  or  St.  John  (r  John  i.  8)  did.  When  Schleiermacher  condemned  this  passage 
as  "  bombast,"  he  condemned  the  equally  strong  language  of  many  great  moralists  of  all 
ages.  And  it  must  be  ren.embered  that  St.  James  was  living  in  the  Jerusalem  of  A.o.  60. 
There  was  not  more  backbiting  theti  than  there  now  is,  but  good  men  felt  its  evil  more  strongly. 
They  did  not  take  an  interest  in  it,  let  it  He  on  their  tables,  subscribe  to  its  dissemination.  Com- 
pare the  Liiiguage  of  the  Son  of  .Sirach  (x.vviii.  15-26)  :  "  Many  have  fallen  by  the  edge  of  the 
sword,  but  not  so  many  as  have  fallen  by  the  tongue.  .  .  .  Strong  cities  hath  it  pulled  down  ; 
well  is  he  that  hath  not  passed  through  the  venom  thereof.  .  .  .  The  death  thereof  is  an  evil 
death  ;  the  yrave  were  better  than  it.  .  .  .  Such  as  forsake  the  Lord  shall  fall  into  it  ;  and  it 
shall  burn  in  them  and  not  he  qu-nchfd  :  it  shall  be  sent  unto  them  as  a  lion,  and  devour 
them  as  a  leopard."     For  Jewish  views,  even  of  the  Talmudists,  see  .Schocttgen. 

'  "  Hy  thy  words  thou  shall  be  justified"  (Matt.  .\ii.  37).  See  the  great  sermon  on  this 
text  by  Harrow. 

•  Holh  these  metaphors  arc  common  in  classical  writers  (Soph.  Antig.  332,  475),  and  both 
occur  in  the  hymn  of  Clemens  of  Alexandria  (/Vr/^^.  rt./ _/?«*•;«).  "Quam  lenibus  initiis 
quanta  inccndia  oriuntur  "  (Sen.  Controz:  v.  5).  'YAt)  is  here  probably  "  a  wood,"  not  "ma- 
terial." The  setting  on  fire  of  forests  by  sparks  furnished  similes  even  in  Homer's  days 
(Hom.  //.  ii.  455  ;  xi.  115  ;  Virg.  Geor^.  ii.  303:  "et  totum  iiwolvit  flammis  nenms  ")  ;  but  St. 
James  is  more  likely  to  have  adopted  it  from  Philo  [De  vti^r.  Abr.  p.  407).  /aeYaAauxei  (ver. 
5)  occurs  only  in  Philo. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  389 

of  injustice — is  a  fire.  It  inflames  the  wiieel  of  being,'  and  is 
ever  inflamed  by  Gelienna.'  It  is  the  sole  untameable  creature 
— a  restless  mischief  brimmed  with  deathful  venom. ^  There- 
with we  bless  the  Lord  and  Father,  and  therewith  we  curse  the 
human  beings  who  have  been  made  after  11  is  likeness.*  Is 
this  inconsistency  anything  short  of  monstrous.'"  Is  it  not 
like  a  fountain  bubbling  out  of  the  same  fissure  the  bitter  as 
well  as  the  sweet?  Can  a  tree  produce  fruits  not  its  own?®  Can 
the  salt  water  of  a  cursing  tongue  produce  the  sweet  water  of 
praise?  (iii.  i — 12). 

These  sins  of  the  tongue  among  Jews  and  Christians  sprang 
in  great  measure  from  the  obtrusive  rivalries,  the  contentious 
ambitions  to  which  he  had  alluded  in  the  first  verse.  Never 
have  they  been  extinct.  Party  spirit  has  always  been  a  curse 
and  disease  ^of  every  religion,  even  of  the  Christian.  The  for- 
mulas of  Christian  councils  have  been  tagged  with  anathemas; 
Te  Deums  have  been  chanted  at  Autos  da  Fe.  And  because 
this  factiousness  shows  an  absence  of  true  wisdom  amid  the 
pride  of  its  imagined  presence,  he  proceeds  to  contrast  the 
false  and  the  true  w^isdom.  True  wisdom,  true  understand- 
ing,' is  shown  by  a  course  of  life  spent  in  meekness,  which  is 
the  attribute  of  wisdom.**  For  a  man  to  boast  of  wisdom  when 
his  heart  is  full  of  bitter  emulation  and  party  spirit  is  a  lying 
vaunt.  The  wisdom  of  which  he  thus  boasts  is  not,  at  any 
rate,  the  heavenly  wisdom  of  the  Christian,  but  earthly,  ani- 
mal,°  demon-like.     The  wisdom  which  evinces  itself  in  party 

1  iii.  6.,  Tov  Tpoxov  it)?  ■yeveVew?  (comp.  Eccl.  xii.  6).  It  is  a  phrase  of  uncertain  meaning, 
perhaps  '"  the  orb  of  creation  " — hardly  "  the  rolling  wheel  of  life  "  (ai/eucu/cAijcri5,  see  Windet, 
De  Vitafutict.),  though  Anacreon  uses  that  expression,  and  the  Syriac  here  has,  "  it  turneth 
the  course  of  our  generations,  which  run  as  a  wheel"  (comp.  Sil.  Ital.  iii.  6,  " rota  volvitur 
aevi"). 

2  Comp.  Pss.  Iii.  2-5  ;  cxx.  3,  4  ;  Prov.  xxvi.  27  :  ^'  there  is  as  a  burning  fire ;"  (Ecclus. 
V.  14  ;  xxii.  24,  "As  the  vapour  and  smoke  of  a  furnace  goeth  before  the  fire,  so  reviling  before 
blood"). 

3  Hermas,  who  has  several  references  to  this  Epistle,  says  [Pastor,  ii.  2)  :  "  Backbiting  is 
a  wicked  spirit,  and  a  restless  demon"  (comp.  Ps.  cxl.  13). 

*»  Even  in  fallen  man,  "  remanet  nobilitas  indelehilis"  (Beng.).  He  still  retains  sparks 
{scintiliulae,  Confess.  Belg.  14)  of  the  heavenly  fire,  though  "  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness"  (Art.  ix.). 

5  The  word  xPh  occurs  here  alone  m  the  New  Testament  or  the  LXX.  The  word  which 
they  use  for  "ought"  is  Sei,  which  expresses  moral  fitness.  "Praise  is  not  seemly  in  the 
mouth  of  a  sinner"  (Ecclus.  xv.  9). 

«  Matt.  vii.  16,  17.  The  metaphor  both  of  this  and  the  next  verse  show  a  marked  local 
colouring. 

T  "Who'is  wise  [chakam)  and  intelligent  [nabhon)  amongst  you?"  (Dcut.  i.  1;^ ;  iv.  6  ; 
Eph.  i.  8  ;  Col.  i.  9).  The  en-io-Trj/ixwi'  is  one  who  understands  and  knows  ;  the  <ro<^os  is  one 
who  carries  out  his  knowledge  into  his  life.  "  Knowledge  comes,  but  wisdom  lingers"  (Ten- 
nyson).     (Job.  xxviii.  ^2.)  ^  "  Ps.  1.  16-20. 

'•'  xjjvxiKOi  (see  Jude  19)  ;  xjjvxt-xol.  nv€vfj.a  fxr)  e^oiTes.  "  .Soulish  "—/•<*.,  sensuous — liv- 
ing only  the  natural  animal  life,  and  therefore  uns/>iritnnl.  'J'his  wisdom  is  earthly,  because 
it  avariciously  cares  for  the  goods  of  earth  (Phil.  iii.  19);  animal,  because  it  is  under  the 
sway  of  animal  lusts  (i  Cor.  ii.  14)  :  demon-like,  because  full  of  pride,  egotism, malignity,  and 
ambition,  which  are  works  of  the  devil  (i  Tim-  iv.  i). 


390  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

spirit  leads  to  unhallowed  chaos  and  every  contemptible  prac- 
tice, "liut  the  wisdom  from  above  is  first  pure,'  then  peace- 
ful, reasonable,  open  to  persuasion,  full  of  mercy  and  good 
fruits,  without  vacillation,"  without  hypocrisy.  .  .  .  But  the 
fruit  of  righteousness  is  ever  sown  in  peace  by  those  who  work 
peace"  (ii.  13 — 18).  Thus  we  see  that  with  St.  James,  no 
less  than  with  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  John,  love,  peace, 
mutual  respect,  mutual  toleration,  is  the  highest  form  of 
wisdom,  and  is  a  far  truer  sign  than  a  contentious  and  bitter 
orthodoxy  that  he  who  has  it  has  reached  to  the  highest  ideal 
of  the  Christian  character. 

But  how  strong  are  the  feelings  of  St.  James  on  this  sub- 
ject! It  was  a  period  of  turmoil  and  contention  within  and 
without  the  fold.^ 

"  Whence,"  he  asks,  "  come  wars,  and  whence  fightings  among  you  ?  Is  it 
not  from  hence,  from  your  pleasures  that  mihtate  in  your  members  ?  ■*  Ye  de- 
sire and  have  not.  Ye  murder^  and  envy  and  are  not  able  to  obtain.  Ye 
battle  and  ye  war,  and  ye  receive  not  because  ye  ask  not  for  yourselves.  Ye 
ask  and  receive  not  because  ye  ask  ill  for  yourselves  that  ye  mav  squander  it  in 
your  pleasures.  Adulteresses  I"  know  ye'not  that  the  friendship  of  the  world 
is  enmity  against  God  ?  Whosoever,  then,  prefers  to  be  a  friend  of  the  world, 
establishes  himself  as  an  enemy  of  God.  Or  deem  ye  that  it  is  vainly  that  the 
Scripture  saith,  '  The  spirit  which  He  made  to  dwell  in  us  jealouslv  yearneth 
over  us  ?'^     But  "  (because   of  this  jealous  love   for  us)    "  He  givetli  greater 

'  "Pure,"  i.e.,  chaste,  consecrated,  free  from  admixture  of  carnal  motives.  Even  out  of 
this  strong  condemnation  of  contentious  dogmatism,  the  universal  misinterpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture has  extoited  an  excuse — r\zy,  an  argument — for  intolerance.  But  the  wisdom  is  only  said 
to  be  '"Jirst  pure,"  because  "purity"  describes  its  imvard  essence,  anil  the  other  epithets 
its  outward  manifestations.  '"Peaceable"  (Matt.  v.  9),  "reasonable,"  i.e.,  "'forbearing"  (i 
'Jim.  iii.  3),  "open  to  persuasion"  (Vuig.  suadil'ilis),  or  perhaps  "winning  its  way  by  gentle- 
ness." Seven  qualities  of  wisdom — .seven  colours  of  the  Divine  rainbow^ — all  blended  into  the 
one  *'  Light  of  the  world."  The  phrase  "  the  wisdom  from  above  "  is  common  in  the  Talmudic 
wntincs.  where  it  is  attributed  to  Adam,  Enoch,  Solomon,  etc. 

■^  aSuixpiTo?,  one  of  St.  James's  frequent  hapax  legojnena.  It  is  better  to  interpret  it  by 
the  ordinary  sense  of  6iaicpiVo/u.a».,  "to  doubt."  The  E.  V.  follows  Luther  in  rendering  it 
"  without  partiality."  IJengcl  says,  "  Non  facit  discriincii  ubi  non  opus  est."  Lange, 
unsectarian,"  "  not  .Separatist,"  i.e.,  not  Pharisaic.  There  is  force  in  his  remark  that  the 
<  pithct  would  naturally  refer  to  social  conduct,  and  have  some  relation  to  dvujro/cpcTOs.  If  so, 
we  miy  render  it  "  not  partial"  or  "censorious."  "  Being  afiiaKpiTos,  it  does  not  spy  out 
niotcs  in  a  brother's  eye  ;  and  being  avuTro/cpiros,  it  docs  not  hide  the  beam  in  its  own  " 
(Wordsworth,  who  adds  that  "  this  beautiful  picture  of  true  wisdom  may  be  placed  side  Ijy 
Mdc  with  tliat  of  charity  purtrayed  by  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  xiii.").  Lomp.  Kcclus.  i.  i-ti,  "AH 
wisdom  Cometh  from  the  Lord,  and  is  with  Him  for  ever.  .  .  Wisdom  hath  been  created  be- 
fore all  thmgs,  and  the  understanding  of  prudence  from  everlasting.  The  Word  of  God  iMost 
High  IS  the  fountain  of  wisdom.  .  .  She  is  with  all  flesh,  according  to  His  gift,  and  He  hath 
jjivcn  her  to  them  that  love  Him." 

\  '^*^?  '".A",  Chapter  xxix.,  on  the  Last  Days  of  Jerusalem. 
"  For  111  truth  nothing  else  except  the  body  and  its  desires  causes  wars,  and  seditions, 
•  iiid  battles"  (i'lato,  I'ltudo,  p.  66,  O- 

»  Some  conjecture  ^Q^vMt,  ";yc  grudge  ;  "  but  the  reading  is  probably  right,  and  means 
yc  murder,     not  "ye  wish  to  kill,"  etc.     See  below. 

•  MoixaAt««?  !  (The  Moixoi  is  omitted  by  X,  A,  K).  The  jemiuine  word  is  explained  by 
the  common  Old  lestamcnt  metaphor  for  idolatry  ^Isa.  liv.  5:  Jer.  ii.  12;  Ezek.  xvi.  32). 
llcncc  inwhc  .New  lestainent  ytvia  MoiJcaAtS  (Matt.  xii.  39:  xvi.  4;  2  Cor.  xi.  2)  ;  and  the 
fctr.ingc  expression  of  2  Pel.  11.  14.  "having  ^y„^J,dlo/at,  adulteress"  (see  note  there). 
1  I  u"i  ;';  **■  3ya.  wpbs  <\>»ovov,  not  "  against  envy  "  (Luther),  but  the  phrase  seems  to 
h:  adverbial,  like  irpo«  fi^a.v,  irpo?  rfiov^v,  etc  HiitoQtl  never  means  "  lusteth,"  as  in  E.  V., 
I'ut  cxprcs>cs  warm  lciidernes>  (i.  Cur.  ii.  y  ;  Phil.  i.  8).     This  seems  to  be  the  only  tenable 


THE    EPISTLE   OE   ST.    JAMES.  391 

grace.     Wherefore  He   saith  God  arrayeth  Himself  against  the  hauglity,  l)ut 
giveth  grace  to  the  humble  "'  (iv.  1—6). 

i.  This  passage  is  in  several  respects  remarkable.  First, 
we  cannot  but  feel  surprise  at  such  a  i)icture  as  this.  Wars, 
fightings,  pleasures  that  are  ever  setting  out  as  it  were  on 
hostile  expeditions,"  disappointed  desires,  frustrate  envy  and 
even  fruitless  murder  to  supply  wants  which  would  have  been 
granted  to  prayer — then,  again,  prayers  utterly  neglected  or 
themselves  tainted  with  sin  because  misdirected  to  reckless 
gratification  of  pleasure,  and  because  ruined  by  contentious- 
ness"*  and  selfishness — all  this  spiritual  adultery,  the  divorce 
of  the  soul  from  God  to  the  love  of  the  world — is  this  indeed 
a  picture  of  the  condition  of  Christian  Churches  within  thirty 
years  of  the  death  of  Christ?  Again,  I  see  no  possible  solution 
of  the  difficulty  except  in  the  twofold  answer — partly  that  St. 
James  is  influenced  by  the  state  of  things  which  he  saw  going 
on  around  him  in  Judaea,  and  partly  that  he  is  drawing  no 
marked  line  of  distinction  between  Jews  and  Christians  in  the 
communities  which  he  is  addressing.*  And  this  being  so, 
there  was  certainly  in  the  Palestine  of  that  day  an  ample  justi- 
fication for  every  line  of  the  dark  delineation.  Alike  among 
priests  and  patriots  there  was  a  fierce  and  luxurious  greed. 
Strifes  about  the  Law  were  loud  and  violent.^  Even  in  the 
days  of  our  Lord,  while  the  tree  of  Jewish  nationality  was 
still  green,  and  not  dry,  as  it  had  now  become,  the  very  Temple 
had  been  polluted  into  a  brigands'  cave.*^  The  dagger  of  the 
assassin  was  often  secretly  employed  to  get  rid  of  a  political 
opponent.  A  bloodthirsty  spirit  had  possessed  itself  of  the 
once  peaceful  nation.  Righteousness  had  once  dwelt  in  their 
city,  but  now  murderers.  Men  like  Barabbas  had  become 
heroes  of  the  people.  Men  like  Theudas,  and  Judas,  and  the 
Egyptian  impostor,  were  crowding  the  horizon  of  the  people's 
life,  and  found  no  difficulty  in  leading  after  them  4,000  men 


translation.  I  may  mention  one  other  version,  which  is  to  make  nvevna  an  accusative — "  God 
yearns  jealously  for  the  spirit  which  He  placed  in  us,  and  gives  us  greater  grace."  Yet  another 
way  (but  inconsistent  with  the  usage  of  the  phrase  i]  ypa<}>ri  Xeyei.)  is  to  break  the  clause  into 
two  questions — "  Do  ye  fancy  that  the  Scripture  spcaketh  vainly  ?  Duth  the  Spirit,  which  He 
planted  in  us,  lust  to  envy?"  (I  see  that  this  is  accepted  by  tlic  Revised  Version,  with  the 
other  renderings  in  the  margin.) 

1  Prov  iii.  34  ;   i  Pet  v.  5  ;  Clem.  Rom.  c.  30.  "  iv.  i,  <rrpoTeuo^«Viof. 

3  St.  Peter  saw  no  less  clearly  (r  Pet.  iii.  7)  that  quarrelsomeness  is  fatal  to  prayer. 

*  It  is  a  weighty  remark  of  I.ange  (ati  ioc.)  that  "  James  put  this  Kpistle  into  the  hands  of 
the  Jewish  Christians  that  it  might  inlluence  all  Jews,  as  it  was  a  missionary  instruction  to  the 
converted  for  the  imconverted,  and  the  truly  converted  for  the  half-converted." 

s  St.  Paul  (Tit.  iii.  9)  applies  to  these  the  very  word  of  St.  James,  "legal  battles"  (^ax** 
vofniKai).  There  were  the  struggling  sects  of  Pharisees,  Sadducces,  Kssenes,  Hcrodians, 
.Samaritans,  etc.  Laurentius  says — "  Non  loquitur  Apostolus  de  bellis  et  caedibus,  sed  de 
mutuis  dissidiis,  litibus,  jurgiis  et  contentionibus."  Uoubtle>^s  of  these — but  of  actual  strug- 
gles also.  *  avriKalov  Kfiarutv,  Matt.  x.vi.  13.     Comp.  Mark  xv.  7  :  Acts  xxi.  38. 


392  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

or  even  murderers.  Zealots  had  increased  in  numbers  and 
in  recklessness.  Bands  of  robbers  were  the  terror  of  every 
district  which  offered  them  hopes  of  plunder.  Assassins  lurked 
in  the  streets,  and  mingled  unnoticed  in  the  dense  throngs 
which  crowded  the  Temple  courts  at  the  great  annual  festi- 
vals.' Sects  were  arrayed  in  bitter  envy  against  sects,  and  all 
were  united  in  burning  hatred  againt  their  Roman  conquerors. 
It  became  in  popular  estimation  a  pious  act — an  act  which  even 
High  Priests  could  hail  and  bless — for  sica7'ii  to  bind  them- 
selves under  a  curse  to  waylay  and  massacre  an  enemy.-  The 
fury  of  fanatical  savagery  assumed  the  guise  of  patriotism. 
False  Christs  and  false  prophets  abounded  and  flourished,  but 
"Stone  him,"  and  "Crucify  him,"  and  "Away  with  him," 
and  "He  is  not  fit  to  live,"  were  cries  into  which  men  were 
ready  to  burst  at  a  moment's  notice  against  those  whose 
thoughts  had  been  enlightened  to  believe  in  the  Son  of  God. 

Besides  all  this,  the  world  and  the  interests  of  the  world 
assumed  a  complete  preponderance  in  the  thoughts  of  all  men; 
the  fear  of  God  seemed  to  have  been  banished  into  the  far 
background  of  life.  Could  such  men  pray  at  all?  Yes,  and 
long  prayers  and  loud  prayers  in  the  Temple  courts  and  at  the 
corners  of  the  streets,  at  the  very  time  when  they  were  de- 
vouring widows'  houses,  and  making  their  proselytes  ten-times- 
worse  children  of  Gehenna  than  themselves.  There  is  literally 
no  end  to  the  anomalies  of  prayers.  Rochester  went  home 
to  pen  a  pious  prayer  in  his  private  diary  on  the  very  day  that 
he  had  been  persuading  his  sovereign  to  commit  an  open  sin. 
Cornish  wreckers  went  straight  from  church  to  light  their 
beacon-fires,  and  Italian  brigands  promise  to  their  saints  a 
share  in  the  profits  of  their  murders.'  This  "Italian  piety" 
is  the  terrible  state  of  moral  apostasy  against  which  St.  James 
speaks  with  all  the  impassioned  sternness  of  one  of  the  old 
prophets.  Like  Amos,  who  had,  no  less  than  himself,  been 
both  a  peasant  and  a  Nazarite,  h'e  raised  his  indignant  voice 
against  the  lu.xury  and  idolatry  of  the  Chosen  People.  It  is 
in  the  love  of  the  world  that  he  sees  the  source  of  all  these 
enormities,  and  it  is  against  this  love  of  the  world,  arrayed  in 
the  golden  robe  of  the  hierarchy,  and  wearing  "Holiness  to 
the  Lord"  upon  its  forehead — it  is  against  this  tainted  scru- 
pulosity and  mitred  atheism  that  he  speaks  trumpet-tongued. 

ii.  But  besides  these  remarks  on  the  general  purport  of  the 
chapter,   we  must  notice  his   unidentified    quotation.      The 

'  See  Jos.  B.  y.  ii.  I,  23:  iv*.  10;  vii.  31  ;  Antt.  xviii.  i. 
'  Act%  xxm.  12.  a  Plumptre,  p.  89. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMKS.  393 

English  version  renders  it  '  'the  spirit  that  clwcHcth  in  us  lustvth 
to  envy.''  The  correct  version,  according  to  the  best  reading, 
is  probably  as  I  have  given  it,  "The  spirit,  which  He  made 
to  dwell  in  us,  yearneth  over  us  jealously."  The  meaning, 
then,  is  that  the  guilt  of  worldly  unfaithfulness  is  enhanced 
because  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  He  hath  given  us,  longs  with 
a  jealous  fondness  that  we  should  pay  to  God  an  undivided 
allegiance,  a  whole-hearted  friendship;  and  for  that  reason 
He  gives  us  greater  grace — greater  because  of  His  yearning 
pity  and  love.^  But  where  does  this  passage  occur  in  Scrip- 
ture? Doubtless  from  the  library  of  the  writers  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  which  forms  our  Old  Testament,  we  can  produce 
analo^es,  more  or  less  distinct,  to  the  general  meaning  of 
this  utterance,^  but  nowhere  do  we  find  the  exact  words.  Only 
tw^o  solutions  are  therefore  possible — (i)  St.  James  may  be 
quoting  from  some  lost  book,  or  some  apocryphal  book — like 
the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Fatj-iarehs.  The  suggestion  is 
rendered  less  unlikely  by  the  references  which  he  makes  in 
this  Epistle  to  other  apocryphal  books,'  and  by  the  fact  that 
his  brother,  St.  Jude,  quotes  from  the  Book  of  Enoch."  We 
must  in  that  case  understand  the  words  17  7P«<^^  in  a  lower 
sense  than  that  which  we  attribute  to  the  Scripture.  Or  (2) 
he  maybe  adopting  the  method,  not  unknown  to  the  Scripture 
writers  and  to  early  Fathers,  of  concentrating  the  meaning  of 
several  separate  passages  into  one  terse  summary. ''  In  that 
case  the  word  "saith"  will  have  to  be  understood  generically 
to  mean,  "Is  not  this  the  sense  of  Scripture?"  If  we  adopt 
this  solution,  we  must  suppose  that  the  passages  alluded  to 
are  such  as  Gen.  vi.  3,  "My  spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with 
men;"  or  Deut.  xxxii.  11,  where  God  describes  His  love  for 
Israel  under  the  image  of  an  eagle  covering  her  young  in  the 
nest,  and  bearing  them  on  her  wings,  and  where  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  this  very  verb  epipothei,  or  "yearns  over,"  occurs;  or, 


1  Here,  as  elsewhere,  I  have  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  trouble  the  reader  with  masses 
of  "  explanations,"  which  torture  out  of  the  words  the  most  impossible  senses  by  the  most  un- 
tenable methods.  Beza,  Grotius,  etc.,  make  it  mean  "  the  spirit  of  man  has  a  natural  bias  to 
envy,"  but  eTriTro^ei;  cannot  bear  this  sense,  nor  that  given  by  I'.cde,  Calvin,  etc.,  Is  the  Spirit 
(of  God)  prone  to  enzy  .?"  nor  that  of  P.ensel,  "  the  Spirit  histeth  against  envy.  1  here  is 
much  less  objection  to  the  view  of  Huther,  Wiesinger,  etc.,  "  He  (God)  yearns  jealously  over 
the  Spirit  which  He  has  placed  in  us,  and  gives  greater  grace"  {supra,  p.  390). 

2  It  has  been  variously  referred  to  Gen.  vi.  3,  5  :  Num.  xi.  29 :  Ezek.  xxiii.  25  ;  xxxyi.  27  . 
Deut.  v.  9  ;  xxxii.  10,  11  ;  Ps.  cxix.  20  :  Prov.  xxi.  10  ;  Cant.  viii.  6 ;  Ecclus.  iv.  4  ;  Wisd.  vi. 

^^'  3"  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom.     Similarly  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  makes 
distinct  references  to  the  I'.ooks  of  Maccabees  ( XI.  37,  38).  Jude  14. 

0  We  find  similar  condensed  quotations  in  John  vii.  33,  42  :  Matt.  11.  23  :  and  perhaps  h.pn. 
V  14  Dean  Plumptre  quotes  from  Clemens  Romanus  (c.  46)  the  curious  passage.  It  has 
been  written,  '  Cleave  to  the  saints,  fo.-  they  who  cleave  to  them  shall  be  sanctified. 


394  THK    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

dgi'm,  Ezek.  xxxv'u  27,  "1  will  put  My  spirit  within  you." 
'Hie  difficulty  cannot  yet  be  considered  to  have  been  removed, 
but  other  methods  of  solving  it  are  far  less  probable  than  the 
two  to  which  I  have  here  referred. 

iii.  Having  thus  shown  their  dangerous  condition,  he  urges 
them,  with  strong  exhortation,  v/hich  reminds  us  of  the  tone 
of  ]oel,  to  submission,  moral  effort,  resistance  of  the  devil,' 
theearnest  seeking  of  God,  and  deep  humiliation  of  soul,' 
which  might  lead  God  to  interfere  on  their  behalf. 

iv.  Then,  with  a  repetition  of  the  word  "brethren,"  which 
shows  that  his  rebukes  are  being  uttered  in  the  spirit  of  love, 
he  warns  them  once  more  against  evil-speaking  as  a  sin  which 
is  adverse  to  the  humility  which  he  has  been  urging  on-them, 
since  it  rises  from  an  imaginary  superiority.  It  arrogantly 
usurps  the  functions  of  God,  who  is  the  one  true  Judge,  be- 
cause He  alone  stands  above  the  Law  on  the  behests  of  which 
we  are  not  capable  of  passing  any  final  judgment.' 

v.  Passing  to  another  sin,  he  strongly  condemns  the  brag- 
gart self-confidence'  and  sensual  security  with  which,  like  the 
Rich  Fool  in  the  Parable,  men  make  gainful  plans  for  the 
future  without  any  reference  to  God,  or  to  His  provident 
ordering  of  our  lives,  or  to  the  fact  that  life  itself  is — or  rather 
that  //in>  themselves  are — but  as  a  fleeting  mist.^  They  /^/lew 
in  their  hearts  that  they  ought  not  to  speak  thus.  If  they 
thought  for  a  moment  their  consciences  would  condemn  them 
for  thus  ignoring  all  reference  to  God,  and  this  was  a  plain 
proof  that  it  was  sin"  (iv.  13 — 17). 


'  This  is  one  of  the  few  places  in  the  New  Testament  where  Sia^oAo?  occurs.  "  The  devil," 
s,iys  Hernias  [/'asf.  ii.  12}.  "can  svrestle  with  us.  but  cannot  throw  us  :  if,  then,  thou  resisj 
him.  he  will  be  conqu-red,  and  flee  from  thee  utterly  ashamed  "     (Matt.  iv.  i-ii  ) 

"  }£c  uses  the  striking  word  xarij^eia— "  downcastness  of  face  "—which  occurs  nowhere 
else  Ml  the  New  Tesumcnt.  He  is  thinking  of  the  outward  manifestations  as  the  signs  of  the 
I  i.v.ird  humiliation. 

»  "  Nostrum  non  est  judicare.  praescrtim  cum  exsequi  non  possumus"  (Bengel).  "To 
■  Tjr  to  doinmccr  over  the  conscience,"  says  the  Emperor  Maximilian,  "  is  to  assault  the  cita- 
del of  heaven." 


.■.16.     aXa^ofeia  only  in  i  John  ii.  16  :  '•  Ve  boast  in  your  vainglorious  presumptions," 
..  V'''  '  ■  "•'  ^■'  ^'*^*^-  X'  9r'4:-     The  best  reading  isar/mis  yap  ecrre,  "for  ye  are  a 


.f  life,  was  to  run  counter  to  the  central  thought  of  their  whole  dispensation.     A  sense 

s  ne.jirncss  was  the  one  thing  which  more  than  all  others  separated  the  Jews  from  other 

.  a  chosen  people.     To  abnegate  this  conviction  in  common  talk  was  to  show  a  practical 

V.      i  he  Rabhinists  also  felt  this.      In   Deblmrim  Rahlxi,  §  9.  a  father  at  his  son's  cir- 

.   i  MH  produces  wine  seven  years  old.  and  says,  '■  With  this  wine  will  I  continue  for  a  long 

I     •       '  'dcbratc  the  btrih  of  my  new-born  son."     'Jhat  night  Rabbi  Simeon  meets  the  Angel 

■'    l>-.th,  and  asks  him       why  he  is  wandering  about."     "  Mecause."  said  Asrael,  ''  I  slay 

tii.n,-  '.„ho  say,  Hr  ivill  ,lv  this  or  that,  and  thinL-  not  hjw  soon  tL-ath  may  oz<er take 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  395 

vi.  Then  in  language  full  of  prophetic  imagery  and  pro- 
phetic fire,  meant  to  terrify  men  into  thoughts  of  repentance, 
but  not  by  any  means  as  Calvin  too  characteristically  said, 
absque  spe  vcniae — "apart  from  hope  of  pardon" — he  bursts 
into  terrible  denunciation  of  the  rich,  which  shows  how  much 
his  thoughts  had  dwelt  upon  their  arrogant  rapacity. 

"  Go  to  now,  ye  rich,  weep,  howling' over  your  miseries  that  are  coming 
upon  you.  Your  riches  are  rotted,  and  your  garments  have  become  moth-eaten 
Your  gold  and  your  silver  is  rusted  through  and  through, ^  and  the  rust  of  them 
shall  be  for  a  witness  to  you, =*  and  shall  eat  your  flesh  ^  as  fire.  Ye  treasured 
up  in  the  last  days."  So  the  pay  of  your  labourers,  who  reaped  your  fields,  the 
pay  kept  back  by  fraud,  cries  aloud  from  you,"  and  the  cries  oi  the  reapers  have 
entered  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Subaoth.'  Ye  luxuriated  on  the  earth  and 
waxed  wanton,  ye  fattened  your  hearts  in  a  day  of  slaughter. «  Ye  condemned, 
ye  killed  the  just  man.     He  doth  nut  resist  you^  (v.  i — 6). 

"  Be  patient,  therefore,  brethren,  until  tlie  coming  of  the  Lord.'"  So  the 
husbandman  awaiteth  the  precious  fruit  of  the  earth,  being  patient  over  it  until 
he  receive  the  early  and  latter  rain."  Be  patient  then,  ye  also,  stablish  your 
hearts  because  the  coming  of  the  Lord  is  near"  (v.  7,  8). 

vii.  Here  again  we  ask,  Of  whom  is  the  Prophet  thinking? 
Were  there  indeed,  in  those  early  days  of  Christianity,  any — 
still  more,  could  there  have  been  many — who  correspond  to 
this  picture  of  voluptuous  and  fraudful  wantonness,  which  had 
forgotten  God  and  was  so  cruel  and  false  to  men?     Surely  St. 

them.  The  man  who  said  he  would  drink  that  wine  often  shall  die  in  thirty  days."  From 
tliis  verse,  and  from  i  Cor.  iv.  19,  "  I  will  come  quickly  to  you,  if  God  7i>iil,"  has  come  tlie 
common  phrase,  ''Deo  7iolfnfe." 

'  Only  in  Isa.  xiii.  6  ;  xiv.  31  ;  xv.  3  ;  xxxiii.;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  Thelanguagemust  be  judged 
from  the  standpoint  of  prophetical  analogies  in  Isaiah,  Amos,  etc.,  and  also  in  Malt,  xxiii.;  Rev. 
xviii.  And  the  warnings,  like  all  God's  warnings,  are  hypothetical  (Jonah  iii.  10  ;  Jer.  xviii, 
7-10). 

2  v.  2.  The  perfects  ^xq  prophetic  perfects  ;  they  express  absolute  certainty  as  to  the  ulti- 
mate result.  karitoTai  is  ^nov\\cr  hapax  legoinenon  (except  Ecclus.  xii.  11),  as  are  <Ti<n\irtv 
(Ecclus.  xiv.  19)  and  (Tr\T6^poiTa  in  this  verse.  Gold  and  silver  do  not  rust,  but  the  expression 
is  perfectly  intelligib'e  (Isa.  i.  22,  "Thy  silver  has  become  dross"). 

3  "  In  their  tarnish  and  consumption  you  may  see  a  picture  of  what  will  come  on  you.'* 
"  Magna  vanitas  !  thesaurisat  moriturus  morituris"  (Aug.). 

4  rds  (rapKai  (plur.)  has  been  taken  to  mean  "your  bloated  bodies,"  etc.,  but  occurs  in 
I>ev.  xxvi.  29,  etc. 

s  There  was  much  worldly  prosperity  and  ostentatious  legalism  at  this  epoch.  Some  take 
ws  irup  after  iOrjaavpicraTe — •'  your  treasury  of  gold  is  in  reality  a  tre.-isury  of  fire." 

®  '•  From  you,''  i.e.,  from  your  hands  or  treasures.  F.cclus.  xxxiv.  22,  "  He  that  taketh 
away  his  neic;hbour's  living  slayetli  him,  and  he  that  defraudeth  the  labourer  of  his  hire  is  a 
blood-shedder"  (comp.  Gen.  iv.  10  ;  Deut.  xxiv.  14,  15  :  Jer.  xxii.  13  :  Mai.  iii.  5).  The  ren- 
dering of  the  E.  v.,  "kept  back  by  you,"  is  also  tenable.  The  tract  Succah  (f.  29,  b)  gives 
four  reasons  why  the  avaricious  lose  their  goods,  which  are  (i)  because  they  keep  back  the 
pay  of  their  iabourers  ;  (2)  because  they  neglect  their  welfare  ;  (3)  because  they  shift  bur- 
dens upon  them  ;  (4)  because  of  pride. 

^  The  form  of  expression  (used  by  no  other  New  Testament  writer,  except  in  a  quotation, 
Rom.  iv,  29 1  is  characteristically  Judaic.  The  LXX.  rendering  is  mostly  irAvroKparutp.  .See 
Bp.  Pearson  On  the  Creed,  Art.  i. 

^  Like  cattle  grazing  in  rich  pastures  on  the  day  that  they  are  doomed  to  bleed  (Theilc)  ; 
Ezek.  xx.xiv.  i-io. 

»  Hos.  iv.  17  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  24  ;  Isa.  liii.  7.  This  makes  the  conclusion  of  the  clause  far  more 
striking  than  the  proposed  renderings,  "  Does  he  not  set  himself  in  array  against  you  ?  "  or 
"bring  the  armies  against  you?" 

'0  This  must  be  a  reference  to  Chrisfs  coming. 

"  The  former  in  winter,  the  latter  in  spring  (Deut.  xi.  14  :   Jer.  iii.  3  :  v.  24  ;  Joel  ii.  23). 


396  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Paul  trives  us  the  answer  when  he  says,  "Consider  your  call- 
in£j,  brethren.  Not  many  of  you  are  wise  after  the  flesh;  not 
many  mi^:::hty,  not  many  noble'" — and  therefore  certainly  not 
many  rich— * 'are  called."  In  those  early  congregations  of 
slaves  and  sufferers  there  was  little  to  attract,  there  was  every 
thing  to  repel,  the  ordinary  multitude  of  the  wealthy.  In  those 
days  the  truth  of  the  Lord's  words  w^as  seen,  "How  hardly 
shall  they  that  have  riches — how  hardly  shall  they  who  trust 
in  riches — enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."  The  "de- 
ceitfulness  of  riches"  became  very  manifest,  and  the  "woe 
unto  you  that  are  rich"  was  seen  in  its  full  meaning.  Rich 
men,  indeed,  there  were  in  the  Church,  as  there  had  been 
since  Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  brought  their 
costly  spices  to  the  tomb;  for  St.  Paul  in  one  of  his  latest 
Epistles  could  give  a  charge  to  the  rich  not  to  be  arrogant, 
and  not  to  trust  in  the  uncertainty  of  riches.^  But  considering 
what  a  Christian  had  in  those  days  to  suffer,  is  it  conceivable 
that  any  of  the  few  rich  men  who  had  ventured  to  bear  the 
reproach  of  the  cross  would  have  lived  the  haughty,  greedy, 
oppressive  life  of  the  men  on  whom  St,  James  here  hurls  his 
unsparing  denunciation?  So  strongly  has  this  difficulty  been 
felt  that  some,  once  more,  see  in  "the  rich"  only  a  symbol  of 
the  proud,  haughty,  exclusive,  self-satisfied  religionist;''  but 
though  the  words  "rich"  and  "poor"  may  not  be  confined  to 
their  literal  senses — yet  certainly  the  literal  sense  is  not  ex- 
cluded. Once  more,  I  see  the  explanation  of  his  passion,  the 
moving  cause  of  his  righteous  menaces,  in  the  conduct  of  the 
leading  classes  at  Jerusalem — the  gorgeously  clad  Herodians, 
the  aristocratic  Sadducees.  I'he  extracts  from  the  Talmud- 
ists  which  I  have  given  on  a  previous  page  describe  their  con- 
duct, and  will  show  what  bitter  need  there  was  for  the  lan- 
guage which  St.  James  employs. 

Nor  is  Josephus  less  emphatic. 

"About  this  time,"  he  says,  "King  Agrippa  gave  the  high 
priesthood  to  Ishmael  Ben  Phabi.  And  now  arose  a  sedition 
on  the  part  of  the  chief  priests  against  the  priests  and  the 
leaders  of  the  multitude  at  Jerusalem.  Each  of  them  gathered 
around  himself  a  company  of  the  boldest  innovators  and  be- 
came their  leader.  And  when  they  came  into  collision  they 
both  ai)usc(l  each  other  and  flung  stones.  There  was  no  one 
to  keep  them  in  awe,  but  all  these  things  went  on  with  a  high 


1  1^°'-  '^i,'^'  ...  ^  I  Tira.  V.  17. 

Comp.  Rev.  II.  y ;  m.  17  ;  and  sec  i   Sam.  ii.  8  ;   Ps.  Ixxii.  n  ;  Amos  ii.  6;  Luke  i.  52, 
53  ;  VL  ao,  cic. 


THE   EPISTLE    OE   ST.    JAMES.  397 

hand  as  though  in  a  city  where  there  was  anarchy.  And  such 
impudence  and  audacity  seized  the  chief  priests  that  they  even 
dared  to  send  slaves  to  the  threshing-floors  to  seize  the  tithes 
due  to  the  priests.  And  it  happened  that  some  of  the  priests 
died  of  want  from  being  deprived  of  their  sustenance,  so  com- 
pletey  did  the  violence  of  the  seditious  prevail  over  all  jus- 
tice.'" 

viii.  And  if  these  words  of  St.  James  were  addressed  to 
Jews  and  Jewish  Christians  about  the  year  a. d.  61,  how  speedily 
were  his  warnings  fulfilled,  how  terribly  and  how  soon  did  the 
retributive  doom  fall  on  these  wealthy,  luxurious  tyrants!  A 
few  years  later  Vespasian  invaded  Judasa.  Truly  there  was 
need  to  howl  and  weep  when,  amid  the  horrors  caused  by  the 
rapid  approach  of  the  Roman  armies,  the  gold  and  silver  of 
the  wealthy  oppressors  was  useless  to  buy  bread,  and  they  had 
to  lay  up,  for  the  moth  to  eat,  those  gorgeous  robes  which  it 
would  have  been  a  peril  and  a  mockery  to  wear.  The  worship- 
pers at  the  last  fatal  Passover  became  the  victims.  The  rich 
only  were  marked  out  for  the  worst  fury  of  the  Zealots,  and 
their  wealth  sank  into  the  flames  of  the  burning  city.  Useless 
were  their  treasures  in  those  "last  days,"  when  there  was 
heard  at  the  very  doors  the  thundering  summons  of  the  Judge! 
In  all  their  rich  banquets  and  full-fed  revelling  they  had  but 
fattened  themselves  as  human  offerings  for  that  day  of  slaugh- 
ter! The  Jewish  historian  here  becomes  the  best  commen- 
tator on  the  prophesies  of  the  Christian  Apostle. 

ix.  "  Ve  condemned^  yc  murdered  the  just.''  The  aorist 
tenses  of  the  original  may  point  equally  well  to  some  single 
act,  or  to  a  series  of  single  acts;  and  "the  just  man"  was  a 
title  of  every  devout  and  faithful  Israelite.  The  present  tense, 
"he  doth  not  resist  you" — so  abruptly  and  pathetically  intro- 
duced— seems  to  show  that  St.  James  is  alluding  to  a  general 
state  of  things.  In  the  delivery  of  Christ  to  the  Gentiles  the 
Jewish  Church  had  slain  "that  Just  One;""  and  since  His 
death  they  had  consented  to  the  murder  of  His  saints  in  the 
stoning  of  Stephen,  and  the  beheading  of  James,  the  son  of 
Zebedee.  But  in  the  scantiness  of  the  records  of  the  early 
Church  of  Jerusalem  there  is  too  much  reason  to  fear  that 
there  was  a  crowd  of  obscurer  martyrs.^  And  Christ  suffered, 
as  it  were,  again  in  the  person  of  His  saints.    When  they  were 

1  Jos.  Antt.  XX.  8,  §  8.  He  repeats  th2  same  complaints  against  Joshua,  son  of  Gamala, 
in  XX.  9,  §  2.  2  Acts  vii.  52. 

3Actsxxvi.  ID.  "When  they  were  condenmed  ic?  tieai/t,"  says  St.  Paul,  "I  gave  my 
voice  against  them.' 


398  THK    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

nuirclered  He  was,  as  it  were,  led  once  more  to  unresisted  sac- 
rince.  And  now  St.  James  himself  bore  pre-eminently  the 
title  of  "the  Just."  His  words  might  seem  to  have  been  pro- 
phetic of  his  own  rapidly-approaching  fate,  while  yet  they 
tacitly  repudiate  the  title  by  which  he  was  called,  to  confer  it 
on  Him  who  alone  is  worthy  of  it.  But  the  state  of  things 
which  he  is  describing  was  by  no  means  isolated.  It  had  been 
already  described  at  length  in  the  language  of  a  book  which 
also  belonged  to  this  epoch,  and  with  which  St.  James  has 
more  than  once  shown  himself  to  be  familiar. 

"  For  the  ungodly  said  .  .  .  Come  on  therefore,  let  us  enjoy  the  good 
things  that  are  present  ;  and  let  us  speedily  use  the  creatures  as  in  youth.  Let 
us  fill  ourselves  with  costly  wine  and  ointments,  and  let  no  flower  of  the  spring 
pass  by  us  ;  let  none  of  us  go  without  his  portion  of  our  voluptuousness — let  vs 
of  press  the  poor  righteous  man  .  .  .  for  that  which  is  feeble  is  found  to  be 
nothing  worth.  Let  us  lie  in  wait  for  the  righteous.  He  professeth  to  have  the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  he  calleth  himself  the  child  of  the  Lord.  He  was  made 
to  reprove  our  thoughts.  We  are  esteemed  of  him  as  counterfeits.  He  pro- 
nounccth  the  end  of  the  just  to  be  blessed,  and  maketh  his  boast  that  God  is  his 
Father.  Let  us  examine  him  with  despitefulness  and  torture,  that  'oe  may  know 
his  meekness  and  prove  his  patience.  Let  us  condemn  him  with  a  shameful  death, 
for  by  his  own  saying  he  shall  be  respected  "  (Wisd.  ii.  6—^0). 

X.  But  all  such  warnings  proved  vain.  Nay,  it  is  probable 
that  they  only  precipitated  the  fate  of  the  speaker,  and  that 
he,  like  other  prophets,  felt  the  vengeance  of  those  whose  un- 
repented  sins  he  so  unsparingly  denounced.'  When  the  priests 
had  murdered  James  the  Just,  not  resisting  them,  but  pray- 
ing for  them,  the  day  for  warning  had  passed  away  for  ever, 
and  over  a  guilty  city  and  a  guilty  nation  History  pronounced 
once  more  her  awful  verdict  of  "Too  late." 

"Ye  condemned,  ye  murdered  the  just.  He  resisteth  you 
iiotS"^^  "And  thus,"  says  Wiesinger,  "we  have,  as  it  were, 
standing  before  us  the  slain  and  unresisting  righteous  man, 
when,  lo!  the  curtain  falls.  Be  patient,  brethren,  wait!" 
The  coming  of  the  Lord  for  which  they  had  to  wait  was  not 
far  distant.  The  husbandman  had  to  wait  in  patience,  and 
often  in  disappointment,  for  the  early  and  latter  rain.  Let 
them  learn  by  his  example.  But  since  the  Judge  was  stand- 
ing already  before  the  doors,'  let  them,  that  they  might  es- 
cape His  condemnation,  not  only  bear  with  patience  the  afflic- 

>  Hegcsippus,  rt/.  Kiiseb.  ii.  23  ;  Oriscn.  c.  Ceh.  i.  48  ;    Jcr.  De  Virr.  Illustr.  \\. 
.        Ojmp.  Amos  V.  12:  "They  afflict  tho  just  ....  therefore  the  prudent  shall  keep  silence 
in  that  tunc.  ' 


§3«). 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   SI'.    JAMES.  399 

tions  of  persecutors,  but  also  abstain  from  murmuring  at  each 
other's  conduct/  It  was  patience  that  they  needed  most; 
patience  with  one  another,  patience  under  external  trials.  As 
an  example  of  that  patience,  let  them  take  the  prophets,  and 
let  the  Book  of  Job'  remind  them  that  in  the  end  God  ever 
vindicates  His  attributes  of  compassionate  tenderness.'' 

xi.  His  task  is  now  done,  but  he  adds  a  few  needful  ad- 
monitions. Let  them  avoid  all  rash  and  needless  oaths,  and 
be  simple  in  their  affirmations/  Let  them  be  more  fervent  in 
prayer. 

"  Is  any  one  among  yon  in  affliction  ?  Let  him  pray.  Is  any  cheerful  ?  Let 
him  sing  praise.  Is  any  sick  among  you?  Let  him  summon  the  ciders  of ^  the 
Church,  and  let  them  pray  over  him,  annointing  him  with  oil'^  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,"  and  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick  man,  and  tlie  Lord  shall 
raise  him  (from  his  becl  of  sickness,  Acts  ix.  34).''  Even  if  he  shall  have  commit- 
ted sin,  it  shall  be  remitted  him.  Confess  then  to  one  another"  yonr  transgres- 
sions, and  pray  for  one  another,  that  ye  may  be  healed."  Much  availeth  the 
supplication  of  a  just  man,  when  it  worketh  with  energy.  Elias  was  a  man  of- 
like  passions  with  us,'"  and  he  prayed  earnestly  that  it  might  not  rain,  and  it 
rained  not  upon  the  earth  three  years  and  six  months. '^  And  again  he  prayed, 
and  the  heaven  gave  rain,  and  the  earth  brought  forth  her  fruit."  ^2 


'  A  clear  reference  to  Matt.  vii.  i  (/xr)  crreva^eTe  Kar  aWrjAtoy)  ;  lit.,  '"'' g-roa?t  net  against 
one  another."  The  E.  V.  "grudge  "  once  meant  "  murmur"  (see  Ps.  lix.  15) ;  "  he  eats  his 
meat  without  grudging"  (.Shakesp.  Much  Ado,  iii.  4,  90). 

2  Here  alone  referred  to  in  tlie  New  Testament,  though  quoted  in  i  Cor.  iii.  19,  and  by 
Phib,  De  Mutat.  Norn.  xxiv. 

3  v.  9-1 1.  Others  interpret  '"Ye  have  seen  the  end  of  the  Lord"  to  mean  "Ye  saw  the 
death  of  Christ,"  as  in  i  Pet.  ii.  22-25  ;  7roAi;o-7rAa7x»'09  is  yet  another  unique  expression  for 
e.v(T-itX.ayxvo^  (Eph.  iv.  32  ;  i  Pet.  iii.  8).     oiKTt'pjuwv  occurs  in  Kcclus.  ii.  13  ;  Luke  vi.  36. 

•*  Comp.  Matl.  v.  35,  36.  Jews  (unlike  Christians,  alas  Ij  were  not  likely  to  take  Cod's 
name  in  vain.  "That  ye  fall  not  into  judgment ;  "  the  reading  eis  ujrdKpwri.i/,  gives  a  worse 
sense,  and  is  not  well  supported. 

^  A  common  Eastern  therapeutic,  as  we  see  from  Isa.  i.  6;  Mark  vi.  13  ;  Luke  x.  34  ;  Jos. 
■^'-  7-  i-  33.  §  5:  A)itt.  xvii.  6,  §  5.  It  was  also  used  by  Ronnans  (Pliny,  I/.  A',  xxxi.  47). 
The  use  of  oil  for  bodily  healing  is  retained  by  the  Eastern  Church. 

«  That  is,  of  Christ  (Matt,  x.vviii.  19  ;  Acts  ii.  38  ;  iii.  16  ;  iv.  10  ;  i  Cor.  i.  13-15). 

'  "Ni.si  mempe  aliter  ei  suppeditat  ad  aeteniam  salutem"  (Grotufs).  In  the  first  Prayer- 
book  of  Edward  VI.  the  anointing  was  accompanied  by  the  prayer  :  -Our  Heavenly  Father 
vouchsafe  for  His  great  mercy  [if  itbe  His  blessed  7i>iil]  to  restore  to  thee  thy  bodily  health." 
The  prayer  will  not  be  thrown  away  ;  it  will  be  answered  as  is  best  for  us  and  the  sufferer. 
How  much  connexion  this  has  with  Extreme  Unction  (of  which  with  an  anathema  the  Council 
of  Trent  commanded  it  to  be  understood)  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  extreme  unction  is 
forbidden,  except  in  cases  in  which  recovery  seems  quite  hopeless. 

«  In  the  manipulation  of  this  text  by  Cornelius  k  Lapi^^e,  "  to  one  another"  becomes  "  to 
a  priest"  ("  frater  fratri  confitemini,  />uta  sacerdoti").  Confession  in  sickness  is  also  en- 
joined in  the  Talmud  (Shabbath,  f  32,  <2), 

»  "When  Rabba  fell  sick  he  bade  his  family  publish  it  abroad,  that  they  who  hated  him 
might  rejoice,  and  that  they  who  loved  him  might  intercede  ■rcith  God  for  him  "  (Nedanm, 
f.  40.  n).  "The  wise  men  have  said.  No  healing  is  equal  to  that  which  comes  from  the  Word 
of  Cod  and  prayer  "  (.Sepher  Ha  Chayim).  '"  Acts  xiv.  15. 

11  Luke  iv.  2s.  This  period  (42  months,  1,260  days— comp.  Rev.  xi.  3)  was  mentioned  by 
the  Jewish  tradition  (Yalkut  Simeoni),  and  is  perfectly  consistent  with  fair  inferences  from  1 
Kings  xviii.  * 

»'^  V.  13-18.  Thus  the  prayer  of  Elijah  was  one  of  mercy  as  well  as  one  of  judgment  Dean 
Phimptro  thinks  that  St.  James  may  have  had  in  mind  the  sudden  burst  of  rain  after  drouglit 
which  fell  in  answer  to  pr.iyer  after  the  troubles  caused  by  the  attempt  of  Cili^iila  l"  ^l  "P 
his  .statue  in  the  Temple  (Jos.  Anif.  xviii.  8.  §  6).  Analogous  to  this  is  the  stor>-  <.f  the  'Ihnn- 
dering  Legion  (Euseb.  //.  K.  v.  5  ;  'Jert.  A/ol.  5),  and  the  well-known  story  of  Mr.  Cnm- 
shaw.  Hegcsippus  says  of  James  himself,  that  it  was  supposed  by  the  people  that  he  caused 
rain  to  fall  by  his  prayers. 


400  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

The  leading  idea  of  this  passage,  which  Lange  most  need- 
lessly allegorises,  is  the  efficacy  of  Christian  prayer.  The 
course  which  St.  James  recommends  in  cases  of  sickness  is 
natural  and  beautiful,  and  in  the  small  numbers  of  the  Chris- 
tian communities  could  be  easily  followed.  It  is  the  advice 
of  which  the  entire  spirit  is  carried  out  in  our  service  for  the 
Visitation  of  the  Sick.  We  no  longer,  indeed,  anoint  with  oil, 
because  we  do  not  live  in  Palestine  or  in  the  first  century.' 
The  therapeutic  means  of  one  climate  and  age  are  not  neces- 
sarily the  best  to  be  adopted  in  another,  but  prayer  belongs  to 
all  countries  and  all  times,  and  the  mutual  confession  of  sins 
is  often  helpful.  We  must  always  distinguish  between  the 
letter  and  the  spirit,  the  accidental  adjunct  and  the  eternal 
principle.  If  this  passage  has  been  perverted  into  the  doctrine 
of  extreme  unction  regarded  as  a  sacrament,"  and  of  sacra- 
mental confession  to  a  priest,  it  has  only  shared  the  fate  of 
hundreds  of  other  passages.  There  are  few  prominent  texts 
on  which  the  tottering  structures  of  purely  inferential  dogmas 
have  not  been  reared.  Thus  do  men  build  upon  Divine 
foundations  the  hay  and  stubble  of  human  fancies.  And  if 
the  passage  has  thus  been  perverted  in  one  direction  by  the 
growth  of  sacerdotalism,  it  has  been  perverted  in  another  by 
the  fanaticism  of  ignorance.  Because  the  promises  of  heal- 
ing given  by  St.  James  are  unconditional,  it  has  been  assumed 
by  some  poor  fanatics  that  no  one  need  ever  die,  as  though 
death,  in  God's  good  time,  were  not  man's  richest  birthright, 
and  as  though  every  good  man's  prayer  for  any  earthly  bless- 
ing was  not  in  itself  made  absolutely  conditional  on  the  will 
of  God.'  But  neither  for  extreme  unction,  nor  for  sacramental 
confession,  nor  for  sacerdotal  absolution, ■*  nor  for  fanatical 
extravagance,  does  this  passage  afford  the  slightest  sanction. 
Such  inferences  are  only  possible  to  the  exegesis  which  takes 
the  sound  of  the  words,  and  not  their  true  meanings.  The 
lessons  which  we  must  here  learn  are  lessons  of  the  blessed- 
ness of  sympathy,  and  of  holy  intercourse,  and  of  the  humble 

'  "Things  which  were  practised  and  prescribed  by  Christ  Himself  and  His  Apostles  are 
not  of  perpetual  obligation  unless  they  are  conducive  to  an  end  which  is  o{ />erff*tin I  neces- 
sity."—l',p.  Wi>idsw.jrih,  who  instances  feet-washing  (John  xiii.  14)  and  the  Kiss  of  Peaco 
(i  Ihcis.  V.  26 ;   I  I'ct.  V.  14). 

3  Anointing  with  oil  was  provided  for  in  the  first  Prayer-hook^f  Edward  VI.,  "  if  the  sick 
man  desire  it ;  "  but  as  no  mtraculous  results  can  follow,  and  as  oil  is  not  specially  valuable 
in  our  climate  as  a  means  of  healing  in  all  diseases,  it  was  wisely  dropped  in  the  Prayer-book 
of  issa  (see  Jcr.  'Jayl-.r's  Preface  to  Holy  Dying). 

'  fKcumcniiis,  on  the  <itherhand,  has  no  warrant  for  oonfinincr  the  reference  of  the  verse  to 
miraculous  healings  111  the  days  of  the  Apostles  (the  x<ipt<rMa  ia/utaTuj;',  i  Cor.  xii.  9). 

♦  F>cn  Cardinal  Cajctan  admits,  with  perfect  frankness  :  "  Hacc  verba  non  loquuntur  de 
Sacramentali  Unctione  cxtremac  uiictioiiis— nee  hie  est  serino  dc  confessione  sacramentali." 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JAMES.  4OI 

confession  of  sin,  and  above  all,  of  prayer,  at  all  times,  but 
most  of  all  in  times  of  sickness.  Our  faith,  too,  may  find  en- 
couragement in  the  efficacy  of  prayer  for  the  achievement  of 
results  which  even  transcend  the  ordinary  course  of  nature. 
In  enforcing  this  faith  by  the  example  of  Elijah,'  St.  James 
does  so  on  the  express  ground  that,  saint  though  he  was,  and 
prophet  though  he  was,  he  was  no  supernatural  being,  but 
one  "of  like  passions"  with  ourselves. 

xii.  Then,  in  one  last  weighty  word,  comes  the  solemn  close 
of  the  Epistle. 

"  My  brethren,  if  any  one  among  you  wander  from  the  truth,  and  one  convert 
him,  know  that  he  who  has  converged  a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall 
save  a  soul  from  death,  and  shall  cover  a  multitude  of  sins  "  (v.  19,  20). 

He  has  spoken  many  words  of  warning  and  condemnation 
against  the  worldliness,  the  violence,  the  forgetfulness  of  (iod, 
which  were  but  too  prevalent  among  Jewish  and  Christian 
communities,  and  he  has  given  many  an  exhortation  to  pa- 
tience, and  dehortation  from  iniquity.  But  this  last  word  is 
a  word  to  those  who  were  most  faithful,  and  is  meant  to  stimu- 
late them  to  the  best  and  most  blessed  of  all  duties — the  en- 
deavour to  help  and  save  the  souls  of  others.  No  reward  could 
equal  that  of  success  in  such  a  task.^  To  hide  as  with  the 
gracious  veil  of  penitence  and  forgiveness  the  many  sins  of  a 
sinner  was  a  Christ-like  service,  and  he  who  was  enabled  to 
render  it  would  share  in  the  joy  of  Christ.  And  may  not  the 
thought  be  at  least  involved  that  in  covering  the  sins  of 
another  he  would  also  be  helping  to  cover  his  own — that  he 
who  waters  others  shall  be  watered  also  himself?^ 

And  there,  as  with  a  seal  affixed  to  a  testament,'  he  ends. 
He  would  leave  that  thought  last  in  their  minds,  and  would 
suffer  neither  greetings  nor  messages  to  weaken  the  force  of 
the  injunction,  or  the  supremacy  of  the  blessing  by  which  he 
would  encourage  them  to  its  fulfilment.  "'Insigni  Joctrind, 
velut  colophone  epistolam  ab solvit. ' '  ^ 

1  It  is  implied  in  i  Kings  xviii.  42,  seq.^  that  Elijah  prayed  for  rain.  It  was  the  Jewish 
tradition  that  he  also  prayed  for  the  drought,  but  Scripture  does  not  say  so.  He  announced 
it  (i  Kings  xvii.  i). 

2  Ps.  xxxii.  I,  2  ;  Ixxxv.  2  ;  Neh.  iv.  5  ;  Prov.  x.  12  ;  i  Pet.  iv.  8.  "  He  commends  the  cor 
rection  of  brothers  from  its  result^  that  we  may  more  eagerly  devote  ourselves  to  it"  ^Calvm). 
A  faint  analogy  occurs  in  Yoma,  f.  87  a,  "  Whoever  leads  many  to  righteousness,  sm  is  not 
committed  by  his  hands."  .  u  l    i,   j 

a  "Whosoever  destroveth  otte  soul  of  Israel,  Scripture  counts  it  to  him  as  though  he  hart 
destroyed  the  whole  world  ;  and  whoso  preserveth  one  soul  of  Israel,  Scripture  counts  it  as 
though  he  had  preserved  the  whole  world"  (Sanhedrin,  f.  37.  «)•  R-  Meyer  said—  'Oreat 
is  repentance,  because  for  the  sake  of  one  that  truly  repenteth,  the  whole  world  is  pardoned 
(Hos.  xiv.  4)"  (Vonia,  f.  86,  /').  How  much  wiser  and  more  controlled  is  the  langiiage  ot 
St.  James  !  <  Herder.  ''  /mnglius. 

26 


402  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 

ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.  PAUL  ON  FAITH  AND  WORKS, 

"Thy  works  and  alms  and  all  thy  good  endeavour 
Staid  not  behind,  nor  in  the  grave  were  trod  ; 
l^ut,  as  Faith  pointed  with  her  golden  rod, 
Followed  thee  up  to  joy  and  bliss  for  ever." — Milton. 

Our  sketch  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  cannot  conclude  with- 
out a  few  words  on  the  famous  passage  in  which,  it  has  been 
supposed,  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  deliberately  contravenes 
and  argues  against  the  most  characteristic  formula  of  the 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.' 

Let  us  first  place  side  by  side  the  passages  which  are  in 
most  direct  apparent  contradiction: 


'' ,  .  .  if  Ab7-ahain  were  jtistijicd 
by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to  glory,  but 
not  before  God  "  (Rom.  iv.  2). 

"  Therefore,  bein^  Justified  by  faith, 
we  have  peace  with  God   through  our 


"  Was  7iot  Abraham  cur  father  jus- 
tified by  works  when  he  had  offered 
Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar?  "  (Jas. 
ii.  21), 

"What  doth  it   profit,  my  brethren, 

though   a   man  say  he  hath   faith,  and 

Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  (Rom.  v.  i).  j  have   not   works  ?    Can   the  faith  save 

I  him  f"  (Jas.   ii.  14). 
"By  grace  are  ye  saved //^rc' y'rt'/V-^  I      ",     .     .     Faith,  if  it  hath  not  works, 
.     .     .     j/ot  of  works,  lest  any  man  j  is  dead,  being  alone  "  (Jas.  ii.  17), 
should  boast"  (Eph.  ii.  8,  9). 

"  Therefore  we  coucliide  that  a  man  "  Ye  see,  then,  ^£'«;  that  by  works  a 
is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  ^  viaji  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only''' 
the  law"  (Rom.  iii.28),  I  (Jas.  ii.  24), 

It  is  hardly  strange  that  the  opposite  character  of  these 
statements  should  have  attracted  deep  attention,  and  of  late 
years  there  have  been  two  distinct  views  respecting  them. 

(i.)  One  is  that  the  passages  involve  a  real  and  even  in- 
tentional contradiction.'^  Baur,  while  holding  that  St.  James 
meant  to  oppose  the  formulae  of  St.  Paul,  or  of  his  School,  yet 
speaks  with  moderation.  He  believes  that  St.  James's  argu- 
ments were  not  so  much  meant  to  be  polemical  as  corrective 
of  misapprehensions,  and  therefore  that  they  were  dictated 
by  the  true  si)irit  of  catholic  unity.  Others,  however,  and 
notably  the  advanced  members  of  the  Tubingen  School,  re- 
gard the  Epistle  as  a  bitter  manifesto  of  Judaising  Christians 
again.st  the  Paulinists.^    The  research  and  insight  of  Baur  led 

•  I  h.nvc  consulted  the  treatment  of  this  subject  by  Luther,  Bengel.  Jer.  Taylor  (Sermon 
ni.  *■'  Fides  forma ta"),  Harrow  {Serviori  ou  Justifyttn;  Faith),  De  Wette  (whose  note  is 

?uoted  in  Aiford,  n,i  toe).  Hare  (Vindiration  of  Luther),  J^ishop  Lightfoot,  Plumptre,  Dean 
5agut,  Wordsworth,  Ewald,  Lange,  Pfleiderer,  Haur,  Wicsinger.  Huther,  Schaff,  Reuss, 
Immer  (iV.  Ttit.  Theoi.),  Neandcr,  .and  other  writers. 

»  Luther,  Cyril  Lucar,  .Striibcl,  Kern,  15aur,  Schwegler.  Renan. 

'  The  notion  that  Jas.  iii.  13-18,  and  the  praise  of  the  wisdom  which  is  "earthly,  unspirit- 
iial,  dcmonish,"  is  a  reflection  on  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15  (Hilgenfcld,  Riulcit.  536)  is  very  ba.seless. 


ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.  PAUL  ON  FAITH  AND  WORKS.      403 

him  to  a  real  discovery  when  he  pointed  out  tiie  importance 
of  the  contest  between  the  Judaisers  and  the  Pauhnists.  Those 
who  pushed  his  views  to  an  extreme  were  prepared  to  sacri- 
fice the  entire  historical  credibility  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
in  order  to  make  out  that  St.  James  and  St.  Paul,  or  at  least 
their  immediate  followers,  hated  each  other  with  irreconcilable 
OjDposition.  They  thought,  in  fact,  that  in  the  Clementine 
Homilies,  with  their  strong  animus  against  St.  Paul,  they  had 
discovered  the  true  key  to  the  early  history  of  the  Church. 
They  attributed  to  the  Apostles  themselves  heretical  slanders 
which  they  would  have  rejected  with  astonished  indignation. 
They  think  that  three  of  the  Apostles — St.  James,  St.  John, 
and  St.  Jude — were  Judaists,  who  not  only  took  an  impas- 
sioned part  in  the  controversies  which  were  excited  by  the 
actions  of  St.  Paul,  but  have  even  recorded  their  abhorrence 
of  his  views  upon  the  Sacred  page.  In  their  opinion,  it  is  St. 
Paul  at  whom  St.  James  is  aiming  one  of  the  bitterest  terms 
of  Hebrew  condemnation  when  he  exclaims,  "But  art  thou 
willing  to  recognise,  O  efiipty person^^  that  faith  without  works 
is  dead?"  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  becomes,  in  their  view,  a 
specimen  of  the  "hatred-breathing  Epistles"  whiclj  were  de- 
spatched to  the  Jewish  Churches  by  the  heads  of  the  Mother 
Church  in  Jerusalem,  to  teach  Christians  not  only  to  repudi- 
ate, but  to  denounce  the  special  "Gospel"  of  the  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles.  According  to  their  interpretation,  St.  John,  the 
Apostle  of  Love,  hurled  forth  against  his  great  fellow-Apostle 
yet  fiercer  execration,  and,  in  "cries  of  passionate  hatred," 
described  him  as  a  False  Apostle,  a  Balaam,  a  Jezebel,  the 
founder  of  the  Nicolaitans,  and  a  teacher  of  crime  and  heresy. 
They,  therefore,  regard  the  addresses  of  the  Apocalypse  to  the 
Seven  Churches  as  manifestoes  directed  by  a  Judaist  against 
the  very  Apostle  by  whose  heroic  labours  those  Churches  had 
been  founded.'  The  falsehood  of  this  hypothesis  has  long 
been  demonstrated.  It  only  furnishes  an  illustration  of  the 
ease  with  which  a  theory,  resting  on  a  narrow  basis  of  fact, 
may  be  pushed  into  complete  extravagance.  That  St.  Paul 
and  St.  James  approached  the  great  truths  of  Christianity 
from  different  points  of  view;  that  they  did  not  adopt  the  same 
phrases  in  describing  them;  that  they  differed  about  various 
questions  of  theory  and  practice;  even  that  they  stood  at  the 
head  of  parties  whose  mutual  bitterness  they  would  have  been 
the  first  to  deplore — is  clear  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 


1  «!?•<■»,  Raca.  2  Renaii,  St.  Paul,  p.  367- 


404  TIIK   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  still  more  clear  from  scattered  notices  in  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul.  But  it  is  quite  common  for  the  adherents  of  great 
thinkers  to  exaggerate  their  differences,  and  fail  to  catch  their 
spirit.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  tone  of  the  Jerusalem 
Pharisees  towards  Gentile  Christians  who  paid  no  regard  to 
the  ceremonial  Law,  we  have  the  evidence  of  St.  Paul  himself,* 
as  well  as  of  public  records  of  the  Church,  that  between  him 
and  the  other  Apostles  there  reigned  a  spirit  of  mutual  respect 
and  mutual  concession.  The  view,  therefore,  that  St.  James 
was  trying,  in  the  approved  modern  fashion,  to  "writedown" 
St.  Paul,  may  be  finally  dismissed. 

(2.)  The  other  view,  which  has  recently  been  maintained 
by  Bishop  Lightfoot,''  is  that  St.  James  is  not  thinking  of  St. 
Paul  in  any  way;  that  his  expressions  have  no  reference  to 
him  whatever;  and  that  he  is  only  occupied  with  controversies 
which  moved  in  an  entirely  different  world  of  ideas.  Now  it 
is,  I  think,  sufficiently  proved  that  this  view  \^  possible.  Evi- 
dence has  been  adduced  to  show  that  the  question  of  faith 
and  works  was  one  which  had  been  long  and  eagerly  debated 
in  the  Jewish  Schools,  and  that  the  names  of  Abraham,  and 
even  of  R^ihab,^  as  forming  two  marked  contrasts,  had  con- 
stantly been  introduced  into  these  discussions.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  true  to  say  that  St.  James  must  be  thinking  of  St. 
Paul.  The  "solifidianism"  of  the  Jews  consisted  in  an  ex- 
clusive trust  in  their  Monotheism,  their  descent  from  Abra- 
ham, their  circumcision,  and  their  possession  of  the  Law.* 
Justin  Martyr  alludes  to  Jews  who,  "although  they  were  sin- 
ners, yet  deceived  themselves  by  saying  that,  if  they  knew  God, 
He  would  not  impute  sin  to  them.""  If,  then,  the  early  date 
of  the  Epistle  could  be  otherwise  demonstrated,  the  question 
as  to  any  designed  opposition  between  the  two  Apostles 
would  fall  to  the  ground,  and  we  should  only  have  to  show 
whether  it  is  possible  •  to  reconcile  independent  statements 
which  at  first  appear  to  be  mutually  exclusive.  It  is  so  im- 
portant to  establish  this  fact — so  important  to  prove  that  what- 
ever be  the  date  of  the  Epistle,  St.  James  may  be  refuting  the 
notion  of  a  justification  by  faith  which  is  not  that  described  by 
St.  Paul,  but  a  blind  Judaic  trust  in  privileges  and  obser- 
vances—that it  will  be  worth  while  to  show  from  the  Talmud 
how  prevalent  these  views  were  in  the  Jewish  world. 

>  fial.  ii.  9  ;  Acts  xv.  13-31  ;  xxi.  17-25. 
.     '  C.ahUians,  pp.  isa-i^a.     This  is  the  view  of  Schneckcnbiirger,  Theile,  Neander,  Schaff, 
1  hirrsch,  Hofni.iiin,  Hiithcr,  Lanpc,  Phimptre. 

'  That  Kahab  was  prominent  in  Jewish  thought  we  see  from  Matt.  i.  5. 

<  Matt.  iii.  9;   lolin  viii.  33  ;  Rym.  ii.  17-20,  and  compare  Jer.  vii,  4. 

£- Just.  Maru  AV./.  S  141.  v       J  -k 


ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.  PAUL  ON  FAITH  AND  WORKS.     405 

a.  Thus,  as  ref^ards  J/^^z/cV/zr/V;;/,  we  lind  that  in  repeating 
the  Shema,  or  daily  prayer,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our 
God  is  one  God"  (Deut.  vi.  4);  "whosoever  prolongs  the 
utterance  of  the  word  One  (cc/iad)  shall  have  his  days  and 
years  prolonged  to  him"  (Berachoth,  f.  13,  /^). 

When  Akhiva  was  martyred  by  having  his  flesh  torn  from 
him,  he  died  uttering  this  word  "One;"  and  then  came  a 
Bath  Kol,  which  said,  "Blessed  art  thou,  Rabbi  Akhiva,  for 
thy  soul  and   the  word   One  left  thy.  body  together"  (id.  f. 

61,  i). 

/?.   Again,  as  regards  circumctsion  : 

"Though  Abraham  kept  all  the  commandments,  including 
the  whole  ceremonial  law  (Kiddushin,  f.  82,  ^z),  still  he  was 
not /<f;/6Y/ till  he  was  circumcised"  (Nedarim,  f.  31,  d). 

"So  great  is  circumcision,  that  thirteen  covenants  were 
made  concerning  it"  (Nedarim,  f.  31,  /;). 

Many  Jews  relied  less  on  their  observances  than  on  their 
possession  of  special  privileges. 

y.  As  regards  their  national  position,  they  said  that  God  had 
given  to  Israel  three  precious  gifts — the  Law,  the  land  of  Is- 
rael, and  the  world  to  come;^  that  all  Israelites  were  princes,'^ 
all  holy,  ^  all  philosophers, ' '  full  of  meritorious  works  as  a  pome- 
granate of  pips,"*  and  that  it  was  as  impossible  for  the  world 
to.be  without  them  as  to  be  without  air.'^'  They  even  ventured 
to  say  that  "All  Israelites  have  a  portion  in  the  world  to  come, 
as  it  is  written,  And  thy  people  are  all  righteous,  they  shall  in- 
herit the  land"  (Is.  Ix.  21).     (Sanhedrin,    f.  90,  a.) 

"The  world  was  created  only  for  Israel:  none  are  called 
the  children  of  God  but  Israel:  none  are  beloved  before  God 
but  Israel"  (Gerim,  i). 

8.  In  fact,  on  the  testimony  of  the  Talmud  itself,  etrma/ism 
had  triumphed  in  the  heart  of  the  Jewish  Ghurch.  The  High 
Priests,  though  they  were,  according  to  the  best  Jewish  testi- 
mony, shameful  examples  of  greed,  simony,  luxury,  gluttony, 
pride,  and  violence,  were  yet  quite  content  with  themselves  if 
they  were  rigorists  in  the  minutiae  of  Levitism  instead  of  ex- 
amples of  ideal  righteousness.  In  the  tract  Sota  (47,  b)  there 
is  a  bitter  complaint  that  moral  worth  was  disregarded,  and 
no  regard  paid  to  anything  but  external  service.  In  another 
tract  (Yoma,  2^,  a)  we  are  told  that  outward  observance  was 
more  highly  esteemed  than  inward  purity,  and  that  murder 
itself  was  considered  venial  in  comparison  with  a  ceremonial 


Berachoth,  f.  5,  a.  «  Shabbath,  f.  57,  a.  '  Shabbath,  f.  86,  a. 

*  The  Machsor  for  Pentecost.  ''  Taanith,  f.  3,  b. 


406  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

defilement  of  the  Temple.'  St.  James  was  daily  familiar  with 
this  spectacle  of  men  who,  living  in  defiance  of  every  moral 
law,  yet  thought  to  win  salvation  by  the  easy  mechanism  of 
ceremonial  scrupulosity.  Against  such  mechanical  concep- 
tions of  holiness  his  Epistle  would  have  told  with  great  power. 
(3.)  But  believing  as  I  do,  on  other  grounds,  that  the 
Epistle  was  written  shortly  before  St.  James's  death,  it  be- 
comes difficult  to  suppose  that  St.  James's  argument  in  favour 
of  "justification  by  works"  bears  no  relation  whatever  to  the 
great  argumentative  Epistles  in  which  St.  Paul  had  estabhshed 
the  truth  of  Justification  by  Faith..  And  while  I  freely  con- 
cede that  the  question  of  faith  and  works  was  frequently  dis- 
cussed in  the  Jewish  Schools,  and  with  special  reference  to 
the  life  of  Abraham,  there  is  not,  I  think,  sufficient  evidence 
that  the  doctrine  had  ever  been  so  distinctly  formulated,  and 
certainly  it  had  never  been  so  fully  and  powerfully  discussed, 
as  it  was  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.^  If 
we  are  right  in  supposing  that  St.  James  wrote  his  Epistle 
about  the  year  61  or  62,  then  some  years  had  elapsed  since  St. 
Paul  had  sent  forth  these  great  Epistles.  Considering  that 
emissaries,  who  came  from  Jerusalem — who  came  ostensibly 
from  James-c-who  boasted,  though  not  always  truly,  of  his 
sanction  and  authority — who  carried  with  them  letters  which, 
if  not  written  by  him,  were  written  by  leading  personages  in 
the  Church  of  which  he  was  the  Bishop — had  penetrated  into 
many  of  the  communities  founded  by  St.  Paul,  and  had  half- 
undone  his  work  by  reducing  his  converts  to  the  legal  bond- 
age from  which  he  had  set  them  free — it  becomes  almost  in- 
conceivable that  St.  James,  even  if  he  had  not  seen  copies  of 
one  or  other  of  those  Epistles,  should  not  at  least  have  been 
familiar  with  the  general  drift  of  views  which  had  become  no- 
torious wherever  the  name  of  Christ  was  preached.  Now, 
the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  was  intensely  original.  It  was  not 
easy  f(jr  any  one  to  grasp  its  full  meaning;  and  it  was  quite 
impossible  for  any  hostile  and  prejudiced  person  to  understand 
It  at  all.  To  many,  educated  in  the  absorbing  prejudices  of 
Judaism,  his  opinions  about  the  Law  would  have  appeared 
tlubious.     Their  indignation  would  have  been  kindled  by  the 


Men  J-  rn    Ki™  '"'1','^'^''"'''=*A'°"\'''*=  ^"■^^'  "'•  321.  32=.  and  the  works  of  Schottgen, 

r  TalmuTT"  r^rN""'*'TV  ^'^-     ^o  kss  than  fourteen  of  the  T.^^.^^^ 

S,:\Vw-2  '  '  ''"'^  Oetnara.  have  now  been  translated  into  French  by  Moise 

„l«-r*.iom"r£""'  '"'"J^  nian  nicht  Icugnen  dass  die  vom  Apostel  Panliis  aufgcstellte  Lehre 
^TrrllT,,!ttTJl  Abhandlung  die  nachste  Vcranlassung  gab"  (Ewald,  Die  Send- 


ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.  PAUL  ON  FAITH  AND  WORKS.     407 

fiery  and  almost  contemptuous  boldness  of  some  of  the  ex- 
pressions which  he  wrote  and  published,  and  which  he  must 
therefore  have  frequently  let  fall  in  the  heat  of  controversy. 
In  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  it  is  hardly  likely  that  the  dialec- 
tics of  St.  Paul  were  lovingly  or  patiently  studied.  St.  James 
himself  is  our  witness  to  the  fact  that  there,  and  throughout 
the  Ghettos  of  the  world,  the  views  of  the  great  missionary 
were  systematically  misrepresented.  To  the  ordinary  Jewish 
Christian  he  was  known  as  one  who  constantly  taught  ''apos- 
tasy frof?i  Moses^*'  a§  one  who  ''forbad''  not  only  Gentiles, 
but  "all  Jews,"  to  circumcise  their  children,  and  "to  walk 
according  to  the  customs.'"  As  regards  Jews,  the  charge  was 
false.  St.  Paul  never  interfered  with  them;  and  since  he  him- 
self kept  the  general  provisions  of  the  Law  as  a  national  duty 
— greatly  as,  to  him,  they  must  have  lost  their  significance — 
we  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  he  would  have  ad- 
vised any  Jew  who  consulted  him  to  do  the  same.  But  any 
lie,  however  often  refuted,  is  good  enough  for  party-spirit; 
and  no  amount  of  explanation,  however  simple  and  sincere, 
will  prevent  the  grossest  misrepresentations  of  opinion  from 
being  used  for  their  own  purposes  by  religious  partisans. 
Further  than  this,  it  is  not  only  possible,  but  probable,,  that 
some  of  St.  Paul's  followers  ^/(/misinterpret  his  characteristic 
expressions,  did  make  a  bad  and  even  dangerous  use  of  them. 
We  might  easily  imagine  that  this  would  be  the  case,  because 
every  day  shows  us  how  easy  it  is,  first  to  turn  any  expression 
into  a  watchcry,  then  to  empty  it  of  all  significance,  and  finally 
to  use  it  in  a  sense  entirely  alien  from  that  in  which  it  was  ori- 
ginally used.  Here  again  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture.  AVe 
have  the  express  testimony  of  the  second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter 
that  there  were  those  who  wrested  the  difficult  parts  of  St. 
Paul's  Epistles,  as  they  did  also  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures,  to 
their  own  perdition.  Now,  if  it  be  merely  snatched  up  as  a 
formula — without  an  earnest  desire  to  understand  it,  without 
the  thought  which  was  necessary  to  see  it  in  its  proper  pcr-^ 
spective — there  is  no  expression  more  liable  to  be  perverted 
than  St.  Paul's  characteristic  formula  of  "Justification  by 
Faith."  In  his  sense  of  the  words  it  is  one  of  the  deepest  and 
most  essential  truths  of  Christianity;  but  in  his  sense  only. 
And  he  has  used  both  words,  "Justification"  and  "Faith,"  in 
meanings  which  made  them  parts  of  one  great  system  of 
thoughts.     It  is  owing  to  this  that  his  words  have  been  con- 

'  Acts  xxi.  21. 


408  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

stantly  misunderstood,  and  are  to  this  day  deplorably  misin- 
terpreted. To  this  day  there  are  some  who  use  expressions 
so  objectionable  as  "works  are  deadly."  There  were  even  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  as  there  have  been  since,  Nicolaitans 
and  other  Antinomians,  who,  on  the  claim  of  possessing  faith, 
have  set  themselves  in  superiority  to  the  moral  law,  and  as- 
serted a  licence  to  commit  all  ungodliness.  Now,  if  St.  James 
had  come  across  such  men,  or  had  been  told  of  their  existence, 
or  had  even  met  with  Jewish  Christians  who,  without  under- 
standing St.  Paul's  teaching,  were  perplexed  by  the  ignorant 
repetition  of  the  formula  which  was  selected  to  represent  it, 
would  there  have  been  anything  derogatory  to  the  character 
of  St.  James,  or  unworthy  of  his  position,  in  the  endeavour 
to  refute  the  perversions  to  which  this  formula  was  liable?  Is 
it  not  a  high  service  to  expose  the  empty  use  of  any  expression 
which  has  been  degraded  to  the  purposes  of  cant  and  faction? 
AVould  not  St.  Paul  have  rejoiced  that  such  a  task  should  have 
been  performed?  Would  he  not  have  performed  it  himself,  if 
circumstances  had  led  him  to  see  that  it  was  needful?  It  is, 
indeed,  improbable  that  he  would  in  that  case  have  used  all 
the  expressions  which  St.  James  has  used;  but  his  pastoral 
Epistles  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  he  would  have  cordially 
concurred  with  him  in  his  general  opinion.  I  believe,  then, 
with  many  of  the  Fathers,  that  St.  James  wrote  this  passage 
with  the  express  intention  of  correcting  false  inferences  from 
the  true  teaching  of  St.  Paul;^  and  that,  though  there  is  no 
contradiction  between  them,  there  is  a  certain  antithesis — a 
traceable  difference  in  the  types  of  dogma  which  they  respec- 
tively adopted.^ 

If  the  arguments  of  St.  James  had  been  intended  for  a  re- 
futation of  St.  Paul  himself,  they  would  have  been  singularly 
ineffectual.  They  do  not  fathom  the  depths  of  his  meaning; 
they  deal  with  uses  of  his  words  which  are  more  superficial 
and  less  specifically  Christian.  A  polemical  argument  must, 
as  such,  be  a  failure  if  every  word  which  the  writer  says  could 
"be  adopted  by  the  person  against  whom  he  is  writing.  It  is 
only  as  the  correction  of  onesided  and  erroneous  inferences 
from  St.  Paul's  teaching,  drawn  by  honest  ignorance  or  circu- 
lated by  hostile  malice,  that  the  argument  of  St.  James  has  a 
value,  which  the  Church  of  all  ages  has  rejoiced  to  recognise. 

liut  setting  aside;  the  question  of  conscious  opposition  be- 


>  This  is  tlic  view  .-idoptcd  by  lip.  Hull  in  his  Harmonia  AJ>ostoUca. 
'  .So  .Schmid,  Wicsiiigcr,  etc. 


ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.   PAUL  ON  FAITH  AND  WORKS,     409 

tween  the  views  of  the  two  Apostles,  as  one  which  hes  outside 
the  range  of  proof,  we  have  to  ask  the  far  more  important 
question.  How  is  their  language  reconcilable  with  the  truth 
of  God?     How  can  it  be  said  with  equal  confidence 

"Ye  are  saved  through  faith  ....  not  of  works''  (Eph. 
ii.  8,  9),  and 

"Ye  see  ....  that  by  ivorks  a  man  is  justified^  and  not 
by  faith  only'  (James  ii.  24)? 

And  here  I  must  entirely  differ  from  Luther  in  the  view 
that  the  two  statements,  in  the  senses  intended  by  their  au- 
thors, are  irreconcilable.'  The  reconciliation  is  easy  when 
we  see  that  St.  James  is  using  all  three  words — Faith,  Works, 
Justification — in  a  different  sense  to  different  persons,  with 
different  illustrations,  under  different  circumstances;  and  when 
we  find,  further,  that  St.  James,  in  other  passages,  insists  no 
less  than  St.  Paul  on  the  importance  of  faith;  and  St.  Paul, 
no  less  than  St.  James,  on  the  necessity  of  works. 

i.  For  by  Faith  St.  Paul  never  means  dead  faith  [Jidcs  in- 
formis)  at  all.  He  means,  (i)  in  the  lowest  sense  of  the  word, 
general  trust  in  God  {assensus,  fidiicia)-^  then  (2)  self-surrender 
to  God's  will;^  (3)  in  its  h'ighest,  and  most  Pauline  sense — the 
sense  in  which  he  uses  it  when  he  speaks  of  "Justification  by 
Faith" — it  is  self-surrender  which  has  deepened  into  sanctifi- 
cation  ;  it  is  a  living  power  of  good  in  every  phase  of  life;  it 
is  tuiio  ?nystica,  a  mystical  incorporation  with  Christ  in  unity 
of  love  and  life.*  But  this  application  of  the  word  was  pecu- 
liar to  St.  Paul,  and  St.  James  does  not  adopt  it.  He  meant 
by  faith  in  this  passage  a  mere  theoretical  belief — belief  which 
may  exist  without  any  germinant  life — belief  which  may  stop 
short  at  a  verbal  profession  of  Jewish  orthodoxy — belief  which 
does  not  even  go  so  far  as  that  of  demons — belief  which,  taken 
alone,  is  so  inappreciable  in  value  that  he  compares  it  to  a 
charity  which  speaks  words  of  idle  comfort  and  does  not  give.  ^ 

ii.  Again,  by  Works  the  two  writers  meant  very  different 
things.  St.  Paul  was  thinking  mainly  of  those  works  which 
stood    high  in  the  estimation  of  his  Jewish  opponents;    he 


^  Luther  says  :  "  Plures  sudarunt  in  Epistola  Jacobi  ut  cum  Paulo  concordarent  .  .  .  sed 
minus  feliciter.  snni  oiim  contraria,  "fides  justiticat'  'fides  non  jusdficat' — qui  h.-cc  rite 
conjungere  potest,  hiiic  vitam  meam  imponam,  et  fatuum  me  nominare  permittam  "  (CoUix/. 
ii.  202).  Strobel,  in  a  review  of  Wiesinger,  says,  "No  matter  in  what  sense  wr  take  ihi; 
Papistic  of  St.  James,  it  is  always  in  conflict  with  the  remaining  parts  of  Holy  Writ." 

2  Rom.  iv.  18  ;  as  in  Heb.  xii.  i. 

3  Rom.  X.  9  ;  Phil.  iii.  7. 

4  Rom.  xii.  5  ;  Phil.  i.  21  ;  i  Cor.  vi.  17.  See  Life  and  IVork  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  18S-193  : 
Pfleiderer,  PauUiusmus,  §  5  ;   Haur,  Paul.  li.  149  ;  Neuc  Test.  T/ieol.  i.  176. 

^  In  other  passages  "  faith  "  connotes  somewhat  more  than  this,  namely,  trust  in  God  (i. 
5  :  V.  15). 


410  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

meant  the  works  and  observances  of  the  Levitical  and  cere- 
monial Law — new  moons,  sabbaths,  sacrifices,  ablutions, 
meats,  drinks,  phylacteries,  and  so  forth; — or,  at  the  very 
highest,  works  of  ordinary  duty,  "deeds  of  the  Law,"  un- 
touched by  emotion,  not  springing  from  love  to  God.  He 
did  not  mean,  as  St.  James  did,  works  of  love  and  goodness 
done  in  obedience  to  the  royal  law,'  those  works  which  spring 
from  a  true  and  lively  faith,  which  iniLst  spring  from  it,  which 
it  is  as  impossible  to  sever  from  it  as  it  is  to  sever  from  fire  its 
light  and  heat.^ 

iii.  And,  finally,  the  sense  of  the  word  Justification  in  St. 
Paul  moves  in  a  higher  plane  than  that  in  which  it  is  used 
by  St.  James.  St.  Paul  uses  the  word  in  a  special,  a  techni- 
cal, a  theological  sense,  to  express  the  righteousness  of  God, 
which,  by  a  judgment  of  acquittal,  pronounced  once  for  all  in 
the  expiatory  death  of  Christ,  He  imputes  to  guilty  man.  St. 
James  uses  the  word  in  the  much  simpler  sense  of  our  being 
declared  and  shown  to  be  righteous — not  indeed,  as  many 
have  said,  before  men  only^ — but  righteous  before  God,  as 
those  whose  life  is  in  accordance  with  their  belief.''  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  justification  which  begins  for  the  sinner  by  the 
trustful  acceptance  of  his  reconciliation  to  God  in  Christ,  and 
which  attains  its  perfect  stage  when  the  believer  is  indeed  "in 
Christ" — when  Christ  has  become  to  him  a  new  nature  and  a 
quickening  spirit.  St.  James  speaks  of  the  justification  of  the 
believer  by  his  producing  such  works  as  are  the  sole  possible 
demonstration  of  the  vitality  of  his  indwelling  faith." 

Briefly,  then,  it  may  be  said  that  the  works  which  St.  Paul 
thinks  of  are  the  works  of  the  Law,  those  of  St.  James  the 
works  of  godliness;  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of  deep  and  mystic 
faith,  St.  James  of  theoretic  belief;  that  St.  Paul  has  in  view 

'  la.  i.  25  ;  ii.  12. 

2  If  .St.  Paul  attaches  to  "  works^'  a  lower  meaning  than  St.  James,  St.  James  attaches  to 
"faith  "  a  lower  meaning  than  Sl  Paul ;  but  there  can  be  no  confusion  about  the  results,  be- 
cause each  writer  uses  the  words  in  senses  which  he  makes  perfectly  clear. 

'  This  common  explanation  (Calvin,  Grotius,  IJaumg.irtcn,  etc.)  is  quite  untenable.  There 
IS  not  .1  word  in  St.  James  to  indicate  that  he  is  only  thinking  of  justification  before  men  ;  and 
the  notion  that  he  is,  is  refuted  by  ver.  14. 

♦  As  our  Ixtrd  also  said,  *'  Hy  thy  words  thou  shalt  l^e  justified"  (Matt.  xii.  37)  ;  and  St. 
I'aul  himself,  m  Rom.  ii.  13,  "  the  (/orrx  of  the  law  shall  be  justijied:'  Had  "this  sentence 
occurred  in  St.  James,  how  eagerly  would  it  have  been  seized  upon  as  a  flat  contradiction  of 
Kom.  ni.  20,  " 'I'heTcforc,  from  the  works  of  the  law  shall  wt;  flesh  be  justified  l)cfore  Him." 
Hut  if  the  same  author  can  thus  in  the  <'ame  Epistle  u.se  the  same  word  in  different  senses, 
what  difficulty  can  there  be  in  supposing  that  this  may  be  done  by  different  writers,  without 
any  hostile  iiitcniion? 

»  "  lb  justify"  (6t<tatoDi' pnx)  has  in  the  P.ible  two  meanings  :  (i)  "To  pronounce  the 
•'""'<:cn^'''Khtcous  '"  accordance'^ with  his  innocence"  (Kx.  xxiii.  7  ;  Prov.  xvii.  15  ;  Is.  v.  23  ; 
M.ntt.  XII.  37,  etc.)  ;  (2)  to  make  righteous,  or  lead  to  righteousness  (Dan.  xii.  31  ;  Is.  liii.  11  ; 
and  Rom.  p<i%tim).  In  St.  James  true  faith  is  imputed  as  righteousness,  but  justification  fol- 
low* works  as  the  proof  of  true  faith  (Lange). 


ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.  PAUL  ON  FAITH  AND  WORKS.     411 

the   initial  justification   of  a  sinner,   St.  James   the  comj^lete 
justification  of  a  believer/ 

iv.  In  accordance  with  this  view,  althou.nh  both  Apostles 
refer,  for  illustration  of  their  views,  to  the  lite  of  the  Patriarch 
who  lived  so  many  centuries  before  the  delivery  of  the  Law, 
they  do  not  refer  to  the  same  events  in  his  life.  St.  Paul  illus- 
trates his  position  by  Abraham's  belief  in  God's  promise  that 
he  should  have  a  son,  when  against  hope  he  believed  in  hope."" 
St.  James,  taking  the  life  and  the  faith  of  Abraham,  so  to 
speak,  "much  lower  down  the  stream,"  shows  how  Abraham, 
many  years  afterwards,  was  justified  as  a  believer,  justified  by 
works,  when  he  gave  the  crowning  proof  of  his  obedience  by 
the  willingness  to  slay  even  his  only  son  and  the  heir  of  the 
promise.''  It  is  obviously  as  true  to  say  that  Abraham  in  that 
act  was  (in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  words)  justified  by 
faith,  as  that  he  was  justified  by  works.  He  was  justified  by 
faith,  because  nothing  but  his  faith  could  have  led  him  to  such 
perfect  endurance  in  the  hour  of  trial;  he  was  justified  by 
v/orks,  because,  without  his  works,  there  could  have  been,  no 
proof  that  his  faith  existed.  Faith  and  works,  in  this  sense, 
are,  in  fact,  inseparably  intertwined.  There  cannot  be  such 
w^orks  without  faith;  there  cannot  be  such  faith  without  works. 
It  is  really  the  same  thing  to  say  that  a  man  is  (in  one  or  other 
of  the  senses  of  the  word)  justified  by  such  a  faith  as  must 
from  its  very  nature  issue  in  good  works,  or  by  such  works  as 
can  only  issue  from  a  true  and  lively  faith.  Nor  is  it  sur- 
prising (as  we  have  seen)  that  the  question  should  be  illus- 
trated by  the  example  of  Abraham,  w^hose  life  and  faith  were 
constantly  discussed  in  their  minutest  particulars  by  the  Jew- 
ish Rabbis,  and  who  was  asserted  to  have  not  only  been  saved 
by  faith,  but  to  have  observed  even  the  oral  commandments 
centuries  before  they  were  delivered."  If  St.  James  also  takes 
the  instance  of  Rahab,  this  does  not  involve  a  necessary  refer- 
ence to  the  remark  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrew^s,  that  she, 
too,  was  saved  by  faith.     For  the  example  of  Rahab  was  also 


1  "Works,"  says  Luther,  "do  not  make  us  righteous,  but  cause  us  to  be  declared  right- 
eous" (Luke  xvii.  9.  10).  =  Rom.  iv,  3,  p,  22  ;  Gen.  xv.  6. 

3  James  ii.  23  ;  (ieii.  xxii.  12.  See  Huther  ad  loc.  A  remarkable  Talmudic  story  tells  us 
that  Satan  slandered  Abraham  before  God,  saying  that  God  had  given  hmi  a  son  when  he 
was  a  hundred  years  old,  and  he  had  not  even  spared  a  dove  for  sacrifice.  God  answers  that 
Abraham  would  not  spare  even  his  son  if  requited.  So  God  said,  "Take  now  thy  son  ^^Uis 
if  a  kUig  should  say  to  his  bravest  tearrior,  Fight  now  this  hardest  battle  of  all),  lor 
fear  it  should  be  said  that  thy  former  trials  were  easy."  "I  have  two  sons,"  answered  Abra- 
ham. "-Take  thine  only  son."  "  Each,"  he  answered,  "is  the  only  son  of  his  mother.^^ 
"  Take  him  whom  thou  lovest."  "  I  love  them  both."  'I'hen  God  said,  "  Take  Isaac. 
Abraham  obeyed,  and  on  the  way  Satan  met  him,  and  tried  to  make  hmi  murmur.  Abraham 
answered,  "  /  will  walk  in  mine  integrity"  (Sanhedrin,  f.  89,  /'). 

4  Yoma,  f.  28,  b  ;   Kiddushin,  f.  82,  a. 


412  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

greatly  discussed  in  the  Jewish  schools,  and  for  her  faith  and 
works' it  was  said  that  no  less  than  eight  prophets,  who  were 
also  priests,  had  sprung  from  her,  and  that  Huldah,  the  pro- 
phetess, was  one  of  her  descendants.' 

V.  And  the  superficial  contradiction  between  the  Apostles 
vanishes  to  nothing  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  St.  Paul  is 
dealing  with  the  vain  confidence  of  legalism,  St.  James  with 
the  vain  confidence  of  orthodoxy.  St.  Paul  was  writing  to 
Gentile  Churches  to  prevent  them  from  being  seduced  into 
trusting  for  salvation  to  the  adoption  of  external  badges  and 
ceremonials,  or  to  good  deeds  done  in  a  spirit  of  servile  fear. 
St.  James  is  arguing  either  with  Jewish  bigots  who  thought 
that  a  profession  of  Monotheism  and  a  participation  in  Jewish 
privileges^  would  save  them;  or  with  mistaken  Paulinists  who 
had  snatched  up  a  formula  which  they  did  not  understand, 
and  who  thought  that  justification  could  be  severed  from  sanc- 
tification — that  a  saving  faith  was  possible  without  the  holi- 
ness of  an  accordant  life.  St.  Paul  is  contrasting  faith  in 
Christ  with  works  of  the  Law;  St.  James  is  contrasting  a  dead 
unreal  faith  with  a  faith  which  evidences  its  reality  by  holy 
works.  St.  Paul's  arguments  were  meant  to  overthrow  the 
vain  confidence  of  the  Pharisee;^  St.  James's  tell  equally 
against  the  Jew  who  pillowed  his  hopes  on  fruitless  orthodoxy, 
and  the  Antinomian  who  identified  saving  faith  with  barren 
profession. 

For,  lastly,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  both  as 
regards  faith  and  works  the  Apostles,  however  much  their  ex- 
pressions may  differ,  were  substantially  at  one. 

(i.)  Thus  as  regards  Faith,  St.  James  says  in  this  very 
chapter: — 

"And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled  which  saith  And  Abra- 
ham believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness''^ (ii.  23). 

And  St.  Paul  quotes  the  same  verse  in  the  same  words 
(Rom.  iv.  3),  with  the  introduction  "What  saith  the  Scrip- 
ture?" 

So  little  does  St.  James  exclude  faith,  that  he  speaks  of 
"the  testing  of  faith"  as  working  out  that  "endurance"  which 
is  the  appointed  path  of  perfectionment  (i.  3);  he  urges  the 
duty  of  prayer  offered  in  unwavering  faith  as  the  means  of 

!  ^'^Rgi'lah.  f.  14.  I"-  ^,  2  Mjitt   iii.  9.  3  Comp.  Acts  xiii.  ^9. 

M.iKnum  i.ptis  sc(l  ex  Fide"  (Aug.  on  Ps.  xxxi.).  Ewald  brleily  says,  "  Faith  "is  the 
nr»t  .nnd  m.>iit  necessary  thing  :  this  is  here  also  taken  for  granted  throughout  :  but  if  must 
prove  It*  existence  by  corresponding  works,  otherwise  man  cannot  obiaiu  Divine  justification 
and  final  rcdcinpHon"  {Die  Sendschreiben,  li.  199). 


ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.   PAUL  ON  FAITH  AND  WORKS.     413 

obtaining  Divine  wisdom  (i.  6);  he  describes  Christianity  as 
being  the  "holding  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the 
Lord  of  the  Glory"  (ii.  i);  he  speaks  of  the  poor  as  being 
heirs  of  the  Kingdom  because  they  are  rich  in  faith  (ii.  5); 
he  implies  the  absolute  necessity  oi  faith  co-existing  with  works 
— working  with  them,  receiving  its  perfection  from  them  (ii. 
22,  26),  and  does  not  imagine  the  possibility  of  such  works  as 
he  contemplates  except  as  the  visible  proofs  of  an  invisible 
faith. 

(ii.)  And  exactly  as  St.  James  neither  ignores  nor  under- 
estimates faith,  so  neither  does  St.  Paul  ignore  nor  underesti- 
mate the  value  and  necessity  of  good  Works.  He  speaks  of 
God  as  "being  able  to  make  all  joy  abound  in  us,  that  having 
in  all  things  always  all  sufficiency  (avTapKeiav)  we  may  abound 
unto  every  good  work"  (2  Cor.  ix.  8).  He  speaks  of  good 
works  as  the  appointed  path  in  which  we  are  predestined  to 
walk  (Eph.  ii.  10).  He  describes  the  walking  "in  every  good 
w^ork,  bearing  fruit,"  as  being  the  worthy  walk,  and  the  walk 
which  pleases  God  (Col.  i.  10).  He  prays  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
may  stablish  the  hearts  of  His  converts  in  every  good  word 
and  work  (2  Thess.  ii.  17).  He  devotes  a  practical  section  in 
every  Epistle  to  the  inculcation  of  Christian  duties  and  vir- 
tues (Rom.  xii. — xvi. ;  i  Cor.  xvi.;  2  Cor.  ix.;  Gal.  v.  6;  Eph. 
v.,  vi.;  Phil.  iv. ;  Col,  iii.,  iv.,  &c.).  He  devotes  the  almost 
exclusive  exhortations  of  his  very  latest  Epistles  to  impress  on 
all  classes  of  his  converts  the  blessedness  of  faithful  working 
(i  Tim.  ii.  10,  v.  10,  vi.  18;  2  Tim.  iii.  17;  Tit.  ii.  7 — 14,  iii. 
8).  Nay,  more,  in  the  very  Epistle  of  which  the  central  idea 
is  Justification  by  Faith,  he  does  not  scruple  to  use  the  word 
justification  in  the  less  specific  sense  of  St.  James,  and  to 
write  that  "f/ie  doers  of  the  Law  shall  be  Justified'^'' — a  sentence 
which  St.  James  might  have  adopted  as  his  text.  Both  Apos- 
tles would  have  freely  conceded  that  (in  a  certain  sense)  faith 
without  works  is  mere  orthodoxy,  and  w^orks  without  faith 
mere  legal  righteousness. 

Surely  after  these  proofs  that  for  all  practical  purposes  the 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  Bishop  of  the  Circumcised  are 
fundamentally  at  one — that  they  agree  in  thought,  though 
they  differ  in  expression,  or  at  least  that  their  minor  differ- 
ences are  merged  in  a  higher  unity — it  is  unjustifiable  to  speak 
as  though,  on  this  subject  at  any  rate,  there  was  any  bitter 
controversy  between  them.     They  approached  the  truths  of 

>  Roin.  ii.  T3. 


414  'i^HE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Christianity  from  different  sides;  they  looked  at  them  under 
different  aspects;  they  lived  amid  different  surroundings; 
they  were  arguing  against  different  errors;  they  used  differ- 
ent phraseology.  The  antithesis  between  them  only  lies  in 
regions  of  literary  expression;  it  in  no  way  affects  the  duty  or 
the  theory  of  the  Christian  life.  There  is  not  a  word  which 
St.  Paul  wrote  on  these  topics  which  would  not  have  been  ac- 
cepted after  a  little  explanation  by  St.  James,  though  he  might 
have  preferred  to  alter  some  of  the  expressions  which  St.  Paul 
employed.  There  is  not  a  word  which  St.  James  wrote  on 
them  which — when  explained  in  St.  James's  sense — St.  Paul 
would  not  have  endorsed.  It  is  true,  as  St.  Paul  wrote,  that 
we  are  "justified  by  faith";  it  is  true,  as  St.  James  wrote, 
that  "we  cannot  be  justified  without  works."  Amid  the  seem- 
ing verbal  contradictions  there  is  a  real  agreement.  Both 
Apostles  held  identical  views  respecting  the  will  of  God,  the 
regeneration  of  man,  and  the  destiny  of  the  redeemed.^  The 
ideal  which  each  accepted  was  so  nearly  the  same,  that  St. 
James's  brief  sketch  of  the  Wisdom  from  above  might  be  hung 
as  a  beautiful  companion  picture  to  St.  Paul's  glorious  de- 
scription of  Heavenly  charity.  Both  would  have  agreed, 
heart  and  soul,  in  the  simple  and  awful  moral  truth  of  such 
passages  as  these: — 

"So  speak  and  so  do  as  they  who  shall  be  judged  by  the 
law  of  liberty."     (Ja.  ii.  12.) 

"Faith  apart  from  works  is  dead,  by  itself."   (Ja.  ii.  17,  26.) 

"The  work  of  each  shall  become  manifest,  for  the  day 
shall  reveal  it."     (i  Cor.  iii.  13.) 

"God  shall  give  to  each  according  to  his  works."  (Rom. 
ii.  6 — 10.) 

"We  must  all  be  made  manifest  before  the  judgment-seat 
of  Christ  that  each  may  obtain  the  things  done  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  body,  with  reference  to  the  things  he  did, 
whether  good,  or  evil."     (2  Cor.  v.  10.) 

Both,  again,  would  have  accepted  heart  and  soul  such 
language  as  that  of  St.  John,  in  which  these  superficial  dis- 
crepancies are  finally  reconciled — "If  we  say  that  we  have  fel- 
Unvship  with  Him  and  walk  in  darkness,  we  lie,  and  do  not 
the  truth"  (i  John  i.  6);— or  as  that  of  St.  Paul  himself  in  the 
very  Kpistle  in  which  he  first  worked  out  the  sketch  of  his 
great  scheme,  and  in  the  three  different  conclusions  to  his  own 
favourite  and  thrice-repeated  formula: — 


>  Sec  suf>ra,  pj).   ^78,  383,  the  note  on  Jas.  i.  i8. 


ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.  PAUL  ON  I-'AITH  ANiJ  WORKS.      415 

"For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availcth  anythini^ 
nor  uncircumcision," — 

But,  *' Faith  working  effectually  by  means  of  love."  (C.al. 
V.  6.) 

But,  "A  new  creature."     (Gal.  vi.  15.) 

But,  "An  observance  of  the  commandments  of  God."  (i 
Cor.  vii.  19.) 

Had  St.  Paul  written,  as  Luther  wrote  for  him,  that  man 
is  justified  "by  Faith  only — had  he  been  in  this  sense  a  Soli- 
fidian — then  there  would  have  been  a  more  apparent  contra- 
diction between  him  and  St.  James.  But  Avhat  St.  Paul  said 
was,  "Therefore  we  reckon  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith, 
apart  from  the  works  of  the  Law"  (Rom.  iii.  28),  and  it  was 
Luther  who  ventured  to  interpolate  the  word  ".alone" — the 
"word  ^/(7;/<c,"  as  Erasmus  calls  it — "stoned  with  so  many 
shoutings" — ("Vox  sola  tot  clamoribus  lapidata").  In  St. 
James's  sense  of  faith  this  would  have  indeed  been  open  to 
the  contradiction  (ii.  24)  "Not  by  faith  alone"  (ovk  Ik  TrurTewg 
fiovov).  But  even  had  St.  Paul  used  the  word  "alone,"  he 
would  have  said  what  is  true  in  /n's  sense  of  the  words,  and  in 
the  sense  in  which  they  are  adopted  in  the  Articles  of  our 
Church.  His  words  only  become  untrue  when  they  are  trans- 
ferred into  the  different  senses  in  which  they  are  used  by  his 
brother  Apostle.' 

Li  this,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  we  may  thank  God  that 
the  truth  has  been  revealed  to  us  under  many  lights;  and  that, 
by  a  diversity  of  gifts,  the  Spirit  ministered  to  each  Apostle 
severally  as  He  would,  inspiring  the  one  to  deepen  our  spirit- 
ual life  ]:>y  the  solemn  truth  that  Works  cannot  justify  apart 
from  Faith;  and  the  other  to  stimulate  our  efforts  after  a  holy 
life  by  the  no  less  solemn  truth  that  Faith  cannot  justify  us 
unless  it  be  the  living  faith  which  is  shown  by  Works.  There 
is,  in  the  diversity,  a  deeper  unity.  The  Church,  thank  God, 
is  ''Circuinainicta  varictatibus'' — clothed  in  raiment  of  many 
hues.  St.  Paul  had  dwelt  prominently  on  Faith;  St.  Peter 
dwells  much  on  Hope;  St.  John  insists  most  of  all  on  Love. 
But  the  Christian  life  is  the  synthesis  of  these  Divine  graces, 
and  the  Works  of  which  St.  James  so  vehemently  impresses 
the  necessity,  are  works  which  are  the  combined  result  of  oper- 
ative faith,  of  constraining  love,  and  of  purifying  hope.'' 


J  See  Article  IX.,  .ind  on  it  Bishop  Forbes,  Bishop  Harold  Browne,  etc. 
3  See  an  excellent  tract  on  St.  Paul  and  .St  James  by  Dean  I'.agot. 


THE    EARLIER   LIFE   AND  WORKS   OF  ST.  JOHN. 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

ST.   JOHN. 

"For  life,  with  all  it  yields  of  joy  and  woe, 
And  hope  and  fear — believe  the  aged  friend — 
Is  just  our  chance  of  the  prize  of  learning  love, 
How  love  might  be,  hath  been  indeed,  and  is." — 

Browning,  A  Death  in  the  Desert. 

"And  recognising  the  grace  given  to  me,  James,  and  Kephas, 
and  John^  who  are  thought  to  be  pillars,  gave  to  me  and 
Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  that  we  to  the  Gentiles, 
but  they  to  the  circumcision"' — 

So  wrote  St.  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  in  one  of  the  passages 
of  the  New  Testament,  which — apart  from  the  Gospels — has 
a  deeper  personal  interest,  and  which  throws  more  light  on 
the  condition  of  the  Church  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  than 
any  other. ^  It  is  an  inestimable  privilege  to  the  Church  that 
we  possess  writings  of  each  of  these  three  Pillar- Apostles — as 
well  as  of  that  untimely-born  Apostle  on  whose  daring  origi- 
nality they  were  inclined  to  look  with  alarm,  until  he  had  fully 
set  forth  to  them  that  view  of  the  Gospel  which  was  emphati- 
cally *7//V  Gospel,'"  and  which  he  had  learnt  "neither  from 
men  nor  by  the  instrumentality  of  man.'"  We  are  thus  en- 
abled to  see  the  Gospel  in  the  fourfold  aspect  in  which  it  ap- 
peared to  four  men, — each  specially  enlightened  by  the  Spirit 
of  (iod,  but  each  limited  by  individual  conditions,  because 
each  received  the  treasure  in  earthen  vessels.  The  minds  of 
men  inevitably  differ.  The  individuality  of  each  man — his 
subjectivity— his  capacity  to  receive  truth— his  power  of  ex- 
pressing it— all  differ.    Hence  the  truths  which  he  utters,  since 


>Gal.  ii.Q.  2  Gal.  i.  II— H.  21. 

'      My  (.ospel,"  i  Cor.  xi.  23.     to  tvayyiXtov  5  KTfpva-a-to  (Cal.  ii.  2). 
*  Cal.  I.  I,  nvK  air'  avOpuinutv  ovSi  61'  ayOputnov,  1  Cor.  xi.  23  ;   xv.  3. 


ST.  JOHN.  417 

they  are  uttered  in  human  lano^uao^e,  must  be  more  or  less 
differentiated  by  human  pecuHarities,  and  hence  arises  a 
gracious  and  fruitful  variety,  not  a  perplexing  contradiction. 
Had  the  Apostles  been  bad  men,  had  there  been  in  their 
hearts  the  least  tinge  of  spiritual  or  moral  falsity,  the  pure 
stream  of  truth  would  have  been  corrupted  by  evil  admixtures; 
but  since  they  were  sincere  and  noble  men,  the  individuality 
with  which  the  style  and  method  of  each  is  stamped  so  far 
from  being  a  loss  to  us  is  a  peculiar  gain.  No  one  man,  un- 
less his  pow^s  had  been  dilated  almost  to  infinitude,  would 
have  been  able  to  set  forth  to  myriads  of  different  souls  the 
perfection  of  many-sided  truths.  It  was  a  blessed  ordinance 
of  God  which  enables  us  to  hear  the  words  of  revelation  spoken 
by  so  many  noble  voices  in  so  many  differing  tones. 

We  see  from  St.  Paul's  allusion,  that  twenty  years  after 
the  Resurrection'  the  three  Pillar-Apostles,  at  the  date  of  his 
conference  with  them,  were  at  Jerusalem,  and  were  still  re- 
garded as  the  chief  representatives  of  Jewish  Christianity. 
But  their  Judaic  sympathies  were  felt  in  very  different  de- 
grees. St.  James  represents  Christianity  on  its  most  Judaic 
side — spiritualising  its  morals,  but  assuming  rather  than  ex- 
pounding its  most  specific  truths.  He  wrote  exactly  as  we 
should  have  expected  a  man  to  write  who  was  a  Nazarite,  a 
late  convert,  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  a  daily  fre- 
quenter of  the  Temple,  a  man  in  the  highest  repute  among 
the  Jews  themselves,  a  man  who,  for  more  than  a  quarter  of 
a  century,  lived  in  the  focus  of  the  most  powerful  Judaic  in- 
fluences. He  was  the  acknowledged  leader  of  those  converts 
who  were  least  willing  to  break  loose  from  the  Levitic  law, 
and  the  tradition  of  the  fathers.  St.  Peter,  on  the  other  hand, 
became  less  and  less  a  representative  of  the  narrower  phase  of 
Judaic  Christianity — more  and  more,  as  life  advanced,  the 
Apostle  of  Catholicity.  The  vein  of  timidity  which,  in  his 
natural  temperament,  was  so  strangely  mixed  with  courage — 
the  plasticity  which  gave  to  his  conduct  a  Judaic  colouring  so 
long  as  he  was  surrounded  by  the  elders  at  Jerusalem,  or  by 
emissaries  who  came  from  James  to  Antioch — caused  him  to 
be  long,  regarded  by  the  converted  Jews  (undoubtedly  against 
his  will)  as  a  party  leader.  Yet  he  was  among  the  earliest  to 
see  the  universality  of  the  Gospel  message,  and  he  flung  him- 
self with  ardour  into  the  support  of  St.  Paul's  effort  to  eman- 
cipate the  Gentiles  from  Levitic  observances.     And  when  he 


'  About  A.D.  52. 

27 


41 8  Tin-:  kakly  days  of  Christianity. 

beg:an  his  missionary  journeys,  his  thoughts  M'idened  more 
and  more  until,  as  we  find  from  his  Epistle,  he  was  enabled 
to  accept  unreservedly  the  teachings  of  St.  Paul,  while  he  di- 
vests them  of  their  antithetical  character,  and  avoids  their 
more  controversial  formulae.  When  we  combine  the  teaching 
of  St.  James  and  St.  Paul,  we  find  those  contrasted  yet  com- 
plementary truths  which  were  necessary  to  the  full  apprehen- 
sion of  the  Catholic  Faith  in  its  manifold  applicability  to 
human  needs.  St.  Peter  occupies  an  intermediate  and  con- 
ciliatory position  between  these  two  extremes — iifore  progres- 
sive than  St.  James,  less  daringly  original  and  independent 
than  St.  Paul.  But  to  utter  the  final  word  of  Christian  reve- 
lation— to  drop,  as  it  were,  the  great  keystone,  which  was  still 
needed  to  complete  and  compact  the  wide  arch  of  Truth — was 
reserved  as  the  special  glory  of  the  Beloved  Disciple.  And 
this  was  the  crowning  work  of  that  old  age  which,  as  a  pecu- 
liar blessing  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  was  probably  prolonged 
to  witness  the  dawn  of  the  second  century  of  the  Christian 
Church.' 

But  in  St.  John  too  we  see  that  growth  of  spiritual  enlight- 
enment which  made  his  life  an  unbroken  education.  In  his 
latest  writings  we  find  a  deeper  insight  into  the  truth  than  it 
would  have  been  possible  for  him  to  attain  before  God  had 
*'shown  him  all  things  in  the  slow  history  of  their  ripening." 
The  "Son  of  Thunder"  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  had  the  les- 
sons of  many  years  to  learn  before  he  could  become  the  St. 
John  who  in  Patmos  saw  the  Apocalypse.  The  St.  John  who 
saw  the  Apocalypse  had  still  the  lessons  of  many  years  to 
learn,  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  to  witness,  before  he  could 
gaze  on  the  world  from  the  snowy  summit  of  ninety  winters, 
and  become  the  Evangelist  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  the  Apostle 
of  Christian  Love. 

And  yet  the  days  of  St.  John  were  not  divided  from  each 
other  by  any  overpowering  crisis,  but  were,  from  first  to  last, 

"  Hound  each  to  each  by  natural  piety." 

In  the  life  of  St.  Paul  the  vision  on  the  road  to  Damascus  had 
cleft  a  deep  chasm  between  his  earlier  and  later  years.  The 
character  of  the  Apostle  retained  the  same  elements,  but  his 
opinions  were  suddenly  revolutionised.  Paul  the  Apostle  could 
only  look  back  with  an  agony  of  remorse  on  the  thoughts  and 
deeds  of  Saul  the  Inquisitor.     Like  Augustine  and  Luther, 


>  Qui  in  RecreU  divinne  sc  nntivitatis  immergens  ausus  est  diccre  otwd  cunctci  sacculu 
netcubant,  "In  prnicipio  crat  vcrbuni "  (Jcr.  in  Isa.  Ivi.  4). 


ST.    JOHN.  419 

he  is  a  type  of  the  ardent  natures  which  are  brought  to  God 
and  to  the  service  of  the  truth  by  a  spasm  of  sudden  change. 
But  St.  John  was  one  of  those  pure  saints  of  whom  the  grace 
of  God  takes  early  hold,  and  in  whose  Hfe,  as  in  those  of 
Thomas  a  Kempis  and  Mehmcthon,  "reason  and  rehgion  run 
together  Hke  warp  and  woof  to  weave  the  web  of  a  holy  Hfe." 
To  him,  from  earliest  days,  the  words  of  the  poet  are  beauti- 
fully applicable — 

"  There  are  who  ask  not  if  thine  eye 

Be  on  them  ;  who,  in  love  and  truth, 
Where  no  misgiving  is,  rely 

Upon  the  genial  sense  of  youth  ; 
Glad  hearts  !  without  reproach  or  blot, 

Who  do  thy  work,  and  know  it  not ; 
Oh,  if  through  confidence  misplaced 

They  fail,  thy  saving  arm,  dread  Power  !  around  them  cast." 

Never,  perhaps,  was  a  more  glorious  destiny  reserved  for 
any  man,  or  a  destiny  more  unlike  what  he  could  have  con- 
ceived possible,  than  that  which  was  awaiting  the  Apostle, 
when  he  played  as  a  boy  beside  his  father's  boat  on  the  bright 
strip  of  sand  which  still  marks  the  site  of  Bethsaida.  His 
father  was  Zabdia  or  Zebedee,  of  whom  we  know  nothing 
more  than  that  he  was  a  fisherman  sufficiently  well-to-do  to 
have  hired  servants  of  his  own.'  He  was  thus  in  more  pros- 
perous circumstances  than  his  partner  Jonas,  the  father  of 
Peter  and  Andrew.  His  wife  was  Salome,  sister  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.  The  fact  that  she  was  one  of  those  who  ministered  to 
the  Lord  of  her  substance,  and  also  bought  large  stores  of 
spices  for  His  grave,  are  additional  signs  that  Zabdia  and  his 
wife  were  not  poor.  Their  sons  were  James  and  John,  who 
were  thus  first  cousins  of  our  Lord  according  to  the  flesh. ^ 

We  catch  no  glimpse  of  John  till  we  see  him  among  the 
disciples  of  the  Baptist  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan.  We  are 
told  however  that,  in  his  manhood,  he  appeared  to  the  learned 
Sanhedrists  of  Jerusalem  to  be  a  "simple  and  unlettered" 
man.^  Doubtless  the  term  which  they  actually  used  was  the  con- 

1  Mark  i.  20. 

2  Nicephorus  and  others  rightly  call  Zebedee  tStovauKArjpoi',  "an  independent  fisherman 
with  a  ship  of  his  own."  What  St.  Chrysostom  [Horn.  i.  in  yoann.)  says  of  the  extreme 
poverty  and  humility  of  his  lot  (oiiSei/  Treuearepov  ovfie  dreAeo-Tepoi',  ic.t.A.)  is  rhetorical  exag- 
geratioi\  (see  Lampe,  Proli'goiitena,-^.  5).  The  Lake  of  Gali'ee  was  extraordinarily  rich  in 
fish,  some  of  which  were  regarded  as  grtat  delicacies,  and— like  the  coracinus — were  extremely 
rare.  The  trade  in  fish  at  J'iberias,  Sepphoris,  Taricheae,  and  especially  at  Jerusalem,  was 
so  active  that  a  leading  fisherman  like  Zabdia  piust  have  been  almost  rich. 

3  Acts  iv.  13.  A  man  was  called  a  mere  ignoramus  {am-/iaarets)  even  if  he  knew  the 
Scripture  and  the  Mishna,  but  had  never  been  one  of  the  "pupils  of  the  wise"  {'J'halntidt 
kachakamhn).  If  he  knew  only  the  Scriptures,  he  was  called  "an  empty  cistern  "  (/vV) 
(Wagenseil,  Sota,  p.  517).  The  idiotes  is  one  who  is  no  authority  on  a  subject  (see  Orig.  c. 
Cels.  i.  30).  Augustine  calls  the  Apostles  "ineruditos  .  .  .  non  peritos  grammaticae,  noa 
arinatos  dialectica,  non  rhetorica  inflatos"  (/>  Civ.  Dei,  xxii.  5). 


420  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY.. 

temptuous  am-haarcts,  a  technical  expression  far  more  scorn- 
ful than  its  literal  translation,  "people  of  the  land.'"  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  he  had  never  been  what  they  called  "a 
pupil' of  the  wise,"  and  had  not  been  trained  in  that  cumbrous 
system  of  the  (Jral  Law  which  they  regarded  as  the  only  learn- 
ing. It  was  well  for  him  that  he  had  not.  The  Rabbinism 
of  that  day  was  nothing  better  than  a  system  of  scholastic 
pedantry,  impotent  for  every  spiritual  end,  like  many  another 
vaunted'  system  of  purely  verbal  orthodoxy,  yet  tending  to  in- 
flate the  minds  of  its  votaries  with  the  conceit  of  knowledge 
without  the  reality.  Of  such  learning  it  might  well  be  said,  in 
the  words  of  Heraclitus,  that  "it  teaches  nothing."^ 

On  the  other  hand,  we  see  from  St.  John's  own  wTitings 
that  he  was  a  man  of  consummate  natural  gifts,  and  that  he 
had  been  so  far  well  educated  as  to  be  acquainted  with  both 
Greek  and  Hebrew,^  of  which  the  latter  was  not  an  ordinary 
acquirement  even  of  well-educated  Jews.  Apart  from  his  un- 
equalled capacity  for  the  reception  of  spiritual  grace,  his  natu- 
ral gifts  appear  in  his  deep  insight  into  the  human  heart;  in 
the  dramatic  power  with  which,  by  a  few  touches,  he  sets  be- 
fore us  the  most  vivid  conception  of  the  most  varied  charac- 
ters; in  his  style,  apparently  so  simple  yet  really  so  profound 
— a  style  supremely  beautiful,  yet  unlike  that  of  any  other 
writer,  whether  sacred  or  profane;  and,  above  all,  in  the  fact 
that  he  was  a  fit  and  chosen  vessel  for  that  consummate  truth 
— the  Incarnation  of  the  Word  of  God.  That  truth,  while 
with  one  swift  stroke  it  summarised  the  speculations  of  Alex- 
andrian theosophy,  became  in  its  turn  the  starting-point  for  the 
most  sacred  utterances  of  all  Christian  thinkers  till  the  end  of 
time. 

His  native  Galilee  was  inhabited  by  the  bravest  and  truest 
race  in  Palestine.*  They  were  remarkable  for  faithfulness  to 
their  theocratic  nationality.  They  detested  and  were  ashamed 
of  alike  the  Roman  dominion  and  the  Herodian  satrapy  which 
was  its  outward  sign.  Their  temperaments  were  full  of  an  en- 
thusiasm which  easily  caught  fire.  The  revolt  of  Judas  of 
(ialilee  against  the  registrations  of  Quirinus  showed  the  in- 
dignation with  which  Galileans  contemplated  the  reduction  of 
the  Holy  Land  to  the  degraded  position  of  a  Roman  province. 
The  watchword  of  that  uprising  was  that  the  Chosen  People 

'  For  the  mc.nniiiK  an<l  associations  of  tliis  word  see  Dr.  McCaul,  Old  I^at/ts,  pp.  458-464. 

'^  iroAv^atfii)  ov  £i6do'Kci  (Hfracl). 

'  The  quoiiiiions  <.f  St.  John  in  the  Gospel  are  not  always  taken  direct  from  the  LXX., 
Jjiit  arc  sometimes  altered  into  more  direct  accordance  with  the  Hebrew  (xix.  37  :  vi.  45  ,• 
«'"•  »8).  4  Jos.  Antt.  xviii.  I,  §  I,  6 ;  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  i. 


ST.    JOHN.  421 

should  have  "no  Lord  or  master  but  God."  Wild  and  hope- 
less as  the  insurrection  was,  and  terribly  as  it  was  avenged, 
its  failure  was  so  far  from  quenching  the  spirit  of  patriotism 
by  which  it  had  been  instigated,  that  it  was  not  difficult  for 
the  sons  of  Judas  long  years  afterwards'  to  fan  the  hot  embers 
into  flame. '^  The  revolt  of  Judas  took  place  when  St.  John 
was  about  twelve  years  old — the  age  at  which  a  Jewish  boy 
began  to  enter  on  the  responsibilities  of  manhood.  It  was 
impossible  that  an  event  which  produced  so  widespread  an 
agitation  should  have  failed  to  leave  an  impression  on  his 
memory.  His  sympathies  must  have  been  with  the  aims,  if 
not  with  the  acts,  of  the  daring  patriot.  In  both  the  sons  of 
Zebedee  we  trace  a  certain  fiery  vehemence,  and  this  it  was 
which  earned  for  them  from  the  Lord  the  title  of  "Boaner- 
ges."^ It  is  probable  that  they  shared  in  some  of  the  views 
which  had  once  actuated  their  brother  Apostle,  the  Zealot 
Simon." 

If  the  home  of  Zebedee  was  in  or  near  Bethsaida,  his  two 
sons  must  have  grown  up  in  constant  intercourse  with  Philip 
and  Andrew  and  Peter,  and  with  his  cousins,  the  sons  of  Al- 
phaeus,  and  with  Nathanael  of  the  not-far-distant  Cana. 
Whether  he  ever  visited  the  home  of  the  Virgin  at  Nazareth, 
and  saw  the  sinless  youth  of  Jesus,  and  the  sternly  legal  faith- 
fulness of  "His  brethren,"  we  do  not  know,  but  in  any  case 
we  can  see  that  he  enjoyed  that  best  of  training  which  con- 
sists in  being  brought  up  in  the  midst  of  sweet  and  noble 
natures,  and  in  the  free  fresh  life  of  a  hardy  calling  and  a 
beautiful  land.  And  what  most  of  all  ennobled  the  aspirations 
of  these  young  Galileans  was  that,  with  perfect  trust  in  God, 
they  were  waiting  for  the  consolation  of  Israel — they  were 
cherishing  the  thought  which  lay  at  the  very  heart  of  all  that 
was  best  and  deepest  in  the  old  Covenant — the  hope  that  the 
promised  Messiah  at  length  would  come. 

We  are  not  told  a  single  particular  about  his  early  years. 
We  first  see  him — evidently  in  the  prime  of  early  manhood — as 
a  disciple  of  the  Baptist."  He  does  not  mention  himself  by 
name,  because  in  his  Gospel  he  shows  a  characteristic  reserve. 

1  A.D.  8  of  our  era.  2  Jn  a. p.  47  and  a.d.  66. 

3  Boanerges,  *'  Ben't-regesh"  (Mark  iii.  17).  No  doubt  the  title*  was  earned  by  the  fire 
and  impetuosity  of  their  nature  ;  not  because  they  were,  asTheophylact  says,  "  mighty  heralds 
and  divines"  (Theophyl.  in  Mark  \.  \  Kpiphan.  Haer.  73  ;  Cyrill.  Alex,  ad  Nestor,  i).  For 
a  multitude  of  theguesses  about  a  matter  perfectly  simple,  see  Lampe.  Prolegoiu.  24-30- 

*  J.uke  vi  15,  K.ananite=:  Zealot.  The  Zealots  formed  the  "extreme  left"  division  of  the 
Pharisees  politically,  as  the  Essenes  did  religiously. 

*  Ecclesiastical  tradition  says  that  he  was  called  '^'•adolesccntior"  and  even  "/M^-r." 
Paulin.  Nol.  EJ>.  51.  Ambros.  OJic.  ii.  20,  §  loi.  Aug.  c.  Fausi.  xxx.  4.  Jer.  c.  Jmin, 
i.  26. 


432  THK   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

But  there  never  has  been  a  doubt  that  he  is  the  disciple  who 
was  with  St.  Andrew  when  they  heard  from  their  Master  the 
words  which  were  to  influence  their  whole  future  life.  The 
Baptist  had  received  the  deputation  which  the  Sanhedrin  had 
sent  to  enquire  into  his  claims,  and  had  told  them  that  he 
was  not  the  Christ,  nor  Elijah,  nor  "the  Prophet."  On  the 
next  day  he  saw  Jesus  coming  towards  him  op  His  return 
from  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness.  Then  first  he  said, 
"Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world!"  and  testified  that  he  had  seen  the  Spirit  descending 
from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  Him.  Again, 
the  next  day,  fixing  his  eyes  on  Jesus  as  He  walked  by,  he 
exclaimed,  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God!"  At  once  the  two 
disciples  followed  Jesus.  Turning  and  gazing  on  them  as 
they  followed.  He  said,  "What  are  ye  seeking?"  Giving 
Him  the  highest  title  of  reverence  they  knew,  the  simple  Gali- 
leans answered,  "Rabbi,  where  stayest  thou?"  He  saith  to 
them,  "Come  and  see."  They  came  and  saw.  It  was  now 
four  in  the  evening,  and  they  stayed  with  Him  that  night. 

That  brief  intercourse  sufficed  to  convince  them  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ.  The  next  morning  Andrew  sought  his  brother 
Simon,  and  with  the  simple  startling  announcement,  "We  have 
found  the  Messiah,"  led  him  to  the  Lord. 

It  is  not  mentioned  that  St.  John  sought  his  brother,  and 
it  is  clear  that  the  elder  son  of  Zebedee  was  not  called  to  full 
discipleship  till  afterwards  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  It  was  from 
no  difference  in  character  that  James  did  not,  so  far  as  we 
know,  become  a  hearer  of  the  Baptist.  He  was  earning  his 
daily  bread  as  a  fisherman,  and  may  have  found  no  opportu- 
nity to  leave  the  Plain  of  Gennesareth.  I  have  ventured 
elsewhere  to  conjecture  the  reason  why  St.  John  was  able  to 
.seek  the  ministry  of  the  Baptist  though  his  brother  was  not.' 
He  had  some  connexion  with  Jerusalem,  and  even  had  a  home 
there.'  We  find  an  explanation  of  this  in  the  fact  that  the  fish 
of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  were  largely  supplied  to  Jerusalem,  and 
nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  Zebedee,  as  a  master  fish- 
erman, should  have  sent  his  younger  son,  at  least  occasionally, 
to  the  Holy  City  to  superintend  what  must  have  been  one  of 
the  most  lucrative  branches  of  his  trade.  If  so,  it  would  have 
been  easy  for  St.  John  to  reach  in  less  than  a  day  the  banks 
of  Jordan,  and  to  listen  to  the  mighty  voice  which  was  then 


'  See  Li/f  of  Christ,  i.  144. 

'*  John  XIX.  a;.     "Kroin  that  hour 


the  Disciple  took  her  t<.  lii^  own  home"  (ci?  rd  iSia). 


ST.    3OHN.  423 

rousing  Priests  and  Pharisees  as  well  as  people  from  their  sen- 
sual sleep. 

The  teaching  of  the  Baptist  appealed  to  the  sternest  in- 
stincts of  his  youthful  follower.  Its  lofty  morality,  its  uncom- 
promising denunciations,  its  dauntless  independence  must 
have  exercised  a  strong  fascination  ov^er  the  young  Galilean. 
It  made  him  more  than  ever  a  Son  of  Thunder.  It  has  been 
said  of  John  the  Baptist  that  he  was  like  a  burning  torch — 
that  the  whole  man  was  an  Apocalypse.  In  the  Apocalypse 
of  him  who  was  for  a  time  his  disciple,  we  still  seem  to  hear 
echoes  of  that  ringing  voice,  to  catch  hues  of  earthquake  and 
eclipse  from  that  tremendous  imagery. 

The  question  here  arises  whether  St.  John  was  or  was  not 
unmarried.  The  ancient  Fathers  are  fond  of  speaking  of  him 
as  a  * 'virgin."  As  early  as  the  pseudo-Ignatius  we  find  an  ad- 
dress to  "Virgins,"  i.e.,  celibates,  with  the  prayer,  "May  I 
enjoy  your  holiness  as  that  of  Elijah,  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun, 
Melchizedek,  Elisha,  Jeremiah,  John  the  Baptist,  the  Beloved 
Disciple,  Timothy,  Evodius,  and  Clemens."  Nothing  cor- 
responding to  this  praise  of  "virginity"  is  found  either  in  the 
Scripture  or  in  the  earliest  Fathers,  for  "the  virgins"  of  Rev. 
xiv.  14,  and  "those  who  have  made  themselves  eunuchs  for 
Christ's  sake"  of  Matt.  xix.  12,  are  expressions  which,  when 
taken  in  the  sense  w^hich  was  familiar  to  the  Jews  themselves, 
convey  no  such  exaltation  of  the  unwedded  life.'  Tertullian, 
however,  in  his  book  "On  Single  Marriage,"  calls  St.  John 
'' Christi spado .^''  and  St.  Jerome,  filled  with  his  monastic  ^//^^/.f 
on  this  subject,  says  that  "when  St.  John  wished  to  marry  his 
Lord  restrained  him."^  Similiar  testimony  is  repeated  by  St. 
Augustine,  Epiphanius,  and  others,  but  it  only  seems  to  have 
been  derived  from  the  "Acts"  of  Leucius.  Apart  from  direct 
evidence,  all  the  customs  of  the  Jews  make  it  extremely  im- 
probable, and  St.  Paul  tells  us  that  ''the  rest  of  the  Apostles'' 
as  well  as  Kephas  were  married.^  The  notion  of  his  celibacy 
was  strengthened  by  the  erroneous  misreading  of  a  superscrip- 
tion to  his  first  epistle  which  is  itself  erroneous.  Augustine 
in  one  place  quotes  i  John  iii.  2,  as  occurring  in  St.  John's 
letter  ''to  the  Parthians,''^  :xn(X    he   is   followed   by   Idacius 

1  See  the  passages  of  Zohar  quoted  by  Scliuttgen.  p.  159. 

2  Tert.  De  MoMOga})iia,  17  ;  Epiphan.  Ilacr.  Iviii.  ;  Jer.  c.  JtriiiHinn.  i,  14.  and  in  f>rpleg. 
yoaun.y  Prae/.  in  Matt.,  ad  Is.  Ivi.  4.  Aug.  c.  Faust,  xxx.  4.  The  virginity  of  St.  John 
became  a  commonplace  with  the  Ecclesiastical  writers.  See  Chrysostoni,  De  I  irg.  82  ( ( '//. 
i.  332),  Ps.  Chrysostom  {Of>J>.  viii.  2,  246,  ed.  Montfaucon)  where  Peter  is  a  type  of  (re/xi-oya- 
/at'a,  and  John  oi  irapBivia.  Ambrose,  De  hist.  }firg.  viii.  50.  The  belief  originated  in  the 
Acts  of  Leucius.     See  Zahn,  Acta  Joannis,  c.  cili. 

3  2  Cor.  xi.  2,  on  whicli  Ambrosiaster  remarks  "onines  Apostoli,  erce/>to  Johantte  et  Paulo 
iixores  habuerunt."  ••  Est.  Prarf.  in  i  John. 


424  THK    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Clams,  and  (according  to  Bede)  by  Athanasius.  But  as  there 
are  also  traces  of  its  having  been  called  "^  letter  to  Vij-gins,'" 
it  has  been  supposed  that  Farthos  is  a  mistaken  contraction 
iox parthenous,  or  vice  versa.  But  even  if  St.  John  had  thus 
written  a  letter  to  "virgins,"  it  would  not  be  a  necessary  in- 
ference that  he  was  himself  unmarried,  or  even  that  "virgins" 
and  celibates  were  equivalent  terms/ 

The  first  call  of  St.  John  on  the  banks  of  Jordan  was  not 
the  final  call.  St.  John  accompanied  Jesus  to  the  marriage 
feast  of  Cana  in  Galilee,  and  saw  Him  manifest  forth  His  glory. 
Then,  during  the  early  ministry  of  Jesus  in  Southern  Jud?ea, 
the  little  band  of  brethren  seem  to  have  resumed  for  a  time 
their  ordinary  avocations. 

It  was  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  after  the  miraculous  draught 
of  fishes,  that  there  came  to  him  the  decisive  call — "Follow 
Me."  He  obeyed  the  call.  With  his  brother  he  left  his 
father  Zebedee  and  the  boat,  and  the  hired  servants — left  all, 
and  followed  Jesus.  Of  Zebedee  we  hear  no  more.  It  is 
probable  that  he  died  soon  afterwards;  for  in  the  bright  year 
of  the  Galilean  ministry,  before  Jesus  was  driven  to  fly  north- 
ward, and  to  wander  through  semi-heathen  districts,  we  find 
Salome,  the  mother  of  James  and  John,  among  "the  women 
who  ministered  unto  Him  of  their  substance." 

The  Apostles  whom  the  Lord  gathered  finally  around  Him 
before  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  fall  into  three  groups  of 
four,  of  which  the  first  and  most  privileged  consisted  of  An- 
drew, Peter,  James,  and  John;  of  these  again  the  last  three 
were  the  most  chosen  of  the  chosen."  Alone  of  the  Apostles 
they  were  permitted  to  witness  the  Raising  of  Jairus's  daugh- 
ter, the  Transfiguration,  and  the  Agony  in  the  Garden.  And 
of  these  three  again  the  nearest  and  dearest  was  John.  Of 
both  Peter  and  John  it  might  have  been  said  that  they,  more 
than  all  the  rest,  were  disciples  whom  Jesus  loved  as  personal 
companions;'  but  St.  John  alone — not  with  a  claim  of  vain- 
glory, but  with  the  simple  testimony  of  truth — has  indicated 
to  us  unmistakably,  yet  with  dignified  reserve,  that  he  was  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  and  honoured  with  the  affection  of 
high  esteem.*   St.  Peter  was  the  more  prominent  as  the  cham- 

>  Another  cause  of  ihis  belief  w.is  llie  fancy  that  our  Lord  specially  .npproved  of  St.  John's 
celibacy,  and  that  this  .ilso  was  the  reason  why  the  Virgin  was  entrusted  to  his  care.  Zahn, 
Acta  Joanun,  p.  20, ,  sr.j.].  2  'EKAexri;'  6«Ae<Torepous  ( Clem.  Alex. ). 

inj.ihnxx.  a  we  have;  the  expression  epx'Tai  Trpbs  2t/oia)ua  Wiipov  Kal  Trpbs  rbv  aWov 
Ma»iKn*'  o*-  ««iAc4  o  Iijcrou?.  I-  rem  the  change  of  term  (c</)tAei,  not  as  in  other  places  h-^a-na.\ 
and  from  the  structure  of  the  sentence.  Canon  Wcstcott  {ad he.)  infers,  with  much  probability, 
Uiat  1  cter  is  here  included  m  the  description. 

*  TyftTo,  xiii.  23 ;   x\\.  »6 ;  xxi.  7,  ao. 


ST.    JOHN.  425 

pion  of  the  Christ;  St.  John  was  the  closer  friend  of  Jesus.' 
And  we  see  in  his  Gospel  the  proof  that  he  was  so.  The 
Synoptists  witness  faithfully  to  external  events.  St.  John 
gives  a  far  more  inward  picture.  He  writes  as  one  to  whom 
it  had  been  granted  to  know  something  of  his  Master's  inmost 
thoughts.^ 

And  yet  this  high  honour,  this  distinguishing  personal  af- 
fection, arose  from  no  faultless  ideality  in  his  character.  The 
youth  with  whom  Italian  art  has  made  us  familiar — the  youth 
of  unearthly  beauty,  with  features  of  almost  feminine  soft- 
ness, with  the  long  bright  locks  streaming  down  his  neck,  and 
the  eagle  by  his  side,  is  not  the  St.  John  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment: he  is  neither  the  St.  John  of  the  Synoptists  and  the 
Apocalypse,  nor  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  Epistles — but  is 
the  one-sided  idealisation  of  Christian  painters.^  Jesus  loved 
him  because  of  his  warm  affections,  his  devoted  faithfulness, 
his  glowing  zeal,  his  passionate  enthusiasm;  not  because  his 
character  as  yet  approached  perfection.  The  young  St.  John 
had  very  much  both  to  learn  and  to  unlearn.  He  participated 
in  the  faults  of  fretfulness,  impatience,  emulous  selfishness, 
ambitious  literalism,  want  of  consideration,  want  of  tender- 
ness, dulness  of  understanding,  and  hardness  of  heart,  which, 
as  the  Gospels  so  faithfully  tell  us,  were  common  to  all  the 
disciples.^  Nay  more,  it  is  remarkable  that,  in  nearly  every 
instance  in  which  he  is  brought  into  prominence,  either  singly 
or  with  his  brother,  it  is  in  connexion  with  some  error  of  per- 
ception or  fault  of  conduct.  He  had  to  unlearn  the  exaggera- 
tion of  the  very  tendencies  which  gave  to  his  character  so 
much  of  its  human  charm.  He  had  to  learn  lessons  of  toler- 
ance, lessons  of  mercy,  lessons  of  humility,  which  perhaps  it 
took  him  his  whole  life  to  understand  in  all  their  fulness  as 
falling  under  the  one  law  of  Christian  love. 

I.  Thus  on  one  occasion  a  selfish  dispute  had  arisen  among 
the  Apostles  as  to  which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest.* 
Our  Lord  rebuked  it  by  taking  a  little  child  and  saying,  by 
way  of  consolation  as  well  as  by  way  of  reproof,  "Whosoever 
shall  receive  this  little  child  in   My  name,  receiveth   Me.'" 

'  St.  Peter  has  been  called  *tAdxpiiTT05,  St.  John  *iAoiJjaous. 

2  See  John  vi.  6,  61,  64  ;  jjfiet  yap  tf  o^pxh'i  k.t.K.  evePpi/M-qaaTO  tuJ  irvivixari  koX  (Tapa^ev 
iavTov,  xi.  33  ;   xiii.  i,  3,  11,  21.     erapaxOri   tiu  nreu/uaTi,  xviii.  4  ;  \ix.  28,  etc. 

^  Pictures  of  St.  John  existed  in  early  days  among  the  Carjjocratians.  See  the  fragments 
of  Leiicius  in  Zahn,  p,  223. 

*  Matt.  XV.  16  ;  xvi.  6-12  ;  John  xii.  16  ;  Mark  Ix.  33  ;  Luke  ix.  49  ;  xxii.  24  ;  xxiv.  25,  etc. 
s  Luke  ix.  49  ;  Mark  ix.  38. 

*  An  old  tradition,  mentioned  by  Hilary,  seems  strangely  to  have  said  that  St.  John  was 
the  boy  to  whom  Jesus  poioted  in  order  to  rebuke  the  ambition  of  the  disciples.  See  Zahn, 
Acfa  Joannis^  p.  cxxxiv. 


426  TIIH    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

The  conscience  of  St.  John  seems  to  have  smitten  him  as  he 
listened  to  the  tender  and  moving  lesson,  and  with  an  inge- 
nuous impulse  he  confessed  to  having  taken  part  in  conduct 
which  now  struck  him  as  a  fault.  "Master, "  he  said,  '  'we  saw 
one  in  Thy  name  trying  to  cast  out  the  demons,  and  we  pre- 
vented him,  because  he  does  not  follow  with  us."  To  prevent 
him  had  been  a  natural  impulse  of  sectarian  pride  and  eccle- 
siastical jealousy.  The  man  was  not  an  Apostle,  not  even  a 
professed  disciple;  what  right  had  he  thus,  as  it  were,  to 
steal  the  credit  of  miracles  which  belonged  to  the  Lord  only, 
and  which  He  had  delegated  to  none  but  His  genuine  fol- 
lowers.' "Who,"  St.  John  may  have  thought,  "is  this  un- 
known exorcist,  who  thus  encroaches  on  our  privileges?"  and 
so,  with  other  Apostles,  he  had  disowned  the  man,  and  per- 
emptorily forbidden  him.'  It  was  an  impulse  somewhat  simi- 
lar to  that  which  had  made  Joshua  exclaim,  "O  my  lord  Moses 
forbid  them,"  when  he  heard  that  Eldad  and  Medad  were 
prophesying  in  the  camp.  Instantly  and  nobly  the  great  law- 
giver had  answered,  "Enviest  thou  for  my  sake?  Would  God 
that  all  the  Lord's  people  were  prophets,  and  that  the  Lord 
would  put  His  Spirit  upon  them."''  So  now  came  at  once  the 
answer,  the  spirit  of  which  in  two  thousand  years  Christians 
have  hardly  begun  to  learn,  "Prevent  him  not!  for  he  who  is 
not  against  us,  is  on  our  side," 

2.  But,  once  again,  John  and  his  brother  James  had  needed 
a  stern  and  public  lesson.  They  had  been  taught  that  secta- 
rian jealousy  is  alien  from  the  heart  of  Christ;  they  had  now 
to  learn  that  religious  intolerance  and  cruel  severity  are  viola- 
tions of  His  spirit.  They  had  to  learn,  or  begin  to  learn,  the 
lesson — of  which  (once  more)  nineteen  centuries  have  failed 
to  convince  the  self-styled  representatives  of  Churches — that 
violence  is  hateful  to  God.^ 

The  incident  occurred  at  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  great 
public  journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  when  He  now  openly 
assumed  the  dignity  of  the  Messiah,  and  was  accompanied  not 
only  by  His  di.sciples,  but  by  a  multitude  of  followers,  all — 
like  Himself— pilgrims  on  their  way  to  the  Holy  City.  The 
first  village  which  lies  between  the  borders  of  Galilee  and 
Samaria,  at  the  foot  of  the  Hills  of  Ephraim,  is  the  pleasant 
village  of  En  Gannim,  or  the  "Fountain  of  Gardens,"  then, 
as  now,  inhabited  by  a  rude  and  fanatical  community.  The 
numbers  of  His  retinue,  and  the  fact  that  He  was  now  about 


'  Lukeix.  49.     Uiakvaatuv.  '^  Num.  xi.  38.  a  Bi'a  ex^pbi*  ©e<J». 


ST.    JOHN.  427 

to  enter  on  the  territory  of  Samaria,  made  it  necessary  to  send 
messengers  before  Him  to  provide  for  His  reception.  It  was 
not  always  that  the  (jahleans  ventured  to  take  the  road  through 
Samaria,  for  the  intense  exacerbation  between  Jews  and  Sama- 
ritans constantly  showed  itself  by  collisions  between  Samari- 
tans and  Passover  pilgrims.  Still  this  road  was  taken  some- 
times by  the  festival  caravans,  and  it  may  be  that  our  Lord 
was  willing  to  test  whether  the  memory  of  His  previous  stay 
among  the  Samaritans  would  secure  for  Himself  and  His  fol- 
lowers a  friendly  welcome.  But  one  of  the  numberless  quar- 
rels which  were  constantly  arising  had  made  the  Samaritans 
more  than  usually  hostile.  Violating  the  rule  of  hospitality, 
though  it  is  the  very  first  rule  of  Eastern  life,  the  villagers 
of  En  Gannim  refused  to  receive  the  Messianic  band. 

It  was  a  flagrant  wrong  thus  to  dismiss  aweary  and  hungry 
multitude  at  the  foot  of  the  frontier  hills,  at  a  distance  from 
other  villages,  and  at  the  beginning  of  their  sacred  pilgrimage. 
But  besides  this  it  was  an  undisguised  insult,  a  refusal,  open 
as  that  of  the  Gadarenes,  to  admit  the  now  public  claims  of 
Him  who  asked  their  courtesy.  Instantly  the  hot  spirit  of  the 
sons  of  Zebedee  took  fire.  It  was  in  this  very  country  that 
Elijah, to  avenge  a  much  smaller  wrong,  had  called  down  fire 
from  Heaven.'  Had  not  the  time  arrived  for  One.  greater 
than  Elijah  to  vindicate  His  majesty,  and  to  revive  by  some 
signal  miracle  the  drooping  spirits  of  His  followers?  "And 
on  seeing  it  His  disciples  James  and  John  said.  Lord,  wiliest 
Thou  we  should  bid  fire  to  descend  from  heaven,  and  con- 
sume them,  as  even  Elijah  did?"  What  wonder,  it  has  been 
said,  "that  the  Sons  of  Thunder  should  wish  to  flash  light- 
ning?" But  how  significant  are  the  touches  of  character 
even  in  those  few  words,  "Wiliest  Thou  that  we — "!  They 
want  to  take  part  in  the  miracle  themselves.  TJiey^  too,  have 
been  insulted  in  the  person  of  their  Lord.  They  have  an  un- 
easy sense  that  calling  down  fire  from  heaven  does  not  quite 
accord  with  the  character  of  Him  who  "went  about  doing 
good,"  but  they  are  ready  to  undertake  the  task  for  him. 
Yet,  even  in  expressing  the  wish,  they  feel  a  little  touch  of 
shame.  Is  not  such  conduct  vindictive  and  impatient?  Well, 
at  least,  their  excuse  is  ready — ''as  Elijah  did.''  They  can 
shelter  themselves  behind  a  great  name.  For  their  earthly 
wrath  they  can  adduce  a  Scripture  precedent.  They  have  "a 
text"  ready  to  consecrate  their   personal  resentment.     Alas! 

'  2  Kings  i.  9-14. 


428  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

had  it  been  in  their  power  to  make  the  heaven  blaze  they 
would  but  have  furnished  another  instance  of  the  crimes  which 
have  been  committed  or  excused  in  the  name  of  Scripture. 
What  is  it  that  we  learn  from  remorseless  persecutions,  bitter 
hatreds  between  those  who  bear  the  common  name  of  Chris- 
tian— from  the  atrocities  of  the  Inquisition,  from  savage  Cru- 
sades, from  brutal  witch-murders,  from  the  fires  of  Smithfield 
and  of  Toledo,  from  the  condonation  and  even  the  approval 
of  mere  assassins,  from  medals  struck  in  honour  of  massacres 
of  St.  Bartholomew,  from  sermons  preached  amid  the  agonies 
of  martyrs,  from  the  slanders  and  calumnies  weekly  used  to 
write  down  imaginary  opponents  by  those  who  think  that  in 
the  hideous  forms  of  their  fanaticism  they  are  doing  God  ser- 
vice?— what  do  we  learn  from  these  most  miserable  and  blood- 
stained pages  of  ecclesiastical  controversy,  but  that 

"  In  religion 
What  damned  error  but  some  sober  brow 
Will  bless  it  and  approve  it  with  a  text. 
Hiding  the  grossness  with  fair  ornament"  ?  • 

But  the  lesson  of  all  Scripture  is  that,  though  the  Elijah-times 
may  require  the  Elijah-spirit,  yet  the  Elijah -times  have  passed 
for  ever,  and  that  the  Elijah-spirit  is  not  the  Christ-spirit. 
For  Christians,  at  any  rate,  it  is  written,  bright  and  large,  over 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament,  that  "the  wrath  of  man 
worketh  not  the  righteousness  of  God."^  And  how  full  of 
instruction  is  Christ's  reproof!  He  does  not  stop  or  stoop  to 
argue.  He  does  not  unfold  the  hidden  springs  of  selfishness 
and  passion  which  had  caused  their  fierce  request.  He  does 
not  dispute  their  Scripture  precedent.  He  does  not  point  out 
that  texts  must  be  misused  if  they  be  applied  to  exacerbate 
human  hatreds  born  in  the  inflation  of  religious  vanity.  He 
does  not  reproach  them  for  the  indifference  to  the  agony  of 
others  which  lay  in  the  words  "Wiliest  Thou  we  should  bid 
fire  to  descend  from  Heaven  and  conswue  themV  No;  but, 
turning  round.  He  rebuked  them,  and  said,  "Ye  know  not — 
ye — of  what  spirit  ye  are.'  For  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to 
destroy  men's  souls,  but  to  save."     His  words  were  brief  and 

'  The  needfulness  of  the  lesson  becomes  even  more  clear  when  we  find  St.  Ambrose  [in 
I.uke  IX.  54,  55)  dehberalcly  d'ifending  the  Apostles  :   "Nee  discipuli  peccant,  qui  legem  se- 
quuntur,    etc.     How  greatly  do  wc  all  need  to  offer  the  prayer— 
"  Let  not  this  weak  unknowing  hand 
I'resumc  Thy  bolts  to  throw, 
And  deal  damnation  round  the  land 
On  each  1  judge  my  foe." 
3  Luke  X,  55,     oiow  vvtvi^arot  iart  vfiii^.     Both  the  expression  of  the  word  i/Meis  and  its 
pOMiion  make  it  extremely  <.Mnphati« . 


ST.    JOHN.  429 

compassionate,  because  in  their  error,  flagrant  as  it  was,  thefe 
was  still  a  root  of  nobleness.  Their  zeal  for  the  Lord,  their 
love  of  His  person,  their  impassioned  estimate  of  the  heinous- 
ness  of  any  insult  directed  against  Him — these  were  the  salt  of 
good  motives  which  saved  their  conduct  from  being  entirely 
evil.  Where  they  erred  was  in  the  fancy  that  love  to  Him 
can  be  rightly  shown  by  fury  and  vengeance  against  those 
whom  they  deemed  to  be  His  enemies;  and  that  it  was  His 
will  that  any  should  perish  rather  than  come  to  repentance. 
It  was  a  lesson,  for  all  ages,  of  infinite  tenderness  and  infinite 
tolerance;  a  lesson  which  during  these  long  centuries  theolo- 
gians and  religious  parties  and  partisans  have  for  the  most 
part  failed  to  learn.  Of  old,  when  it  was  permitted  them,  they 
resorted  to  chains  and  stakes;  now  that  the  secular  weapons 
have  been  struck  out  of  their  grasp,  they  shoot  out  their  ar- 
rows, even  bitter  words.  And  they  take  this  to  be  religion, 
— this  to  be  the  sort  of  service  which  Christ  approves! 

3.  Once  again  in  the  Gospels  the  sons  of  Zebedee  come 
into  separate  prominence,  and  once  again  they  appear  as  dis- 
ciples who  have  misunderstood  Christ's  promises,  and  but  im- 
perfectly learnt  His  lessons.  The  incident  occurred  at  one  of 
the  most  solemn  moments  in  His  life.  From  the  plots  and 
excommunications  of  His  enemies,  with  a  heavy  price  upon 
His  head,  He  had  taken  refuge  in  deep  obscurity  in  the  little 
town  of  Ephraim.  There  He  remained  for  some  weeks  be- 
tween the  death  of  Lazarus  and  the  Passover,'  until  from  the 
summit  of  the  conical  hill  on  which  the  little  town  was  built. 
He  could  see  the  long  trains  of  Galilean  pilgrims  streaming 
down  the  Jordan  valley  on  their  way  to  Jerusalem.  Then  He 
knew  that  He  could  join  them  and  proceed  at  their  head  to 
the  Holy  City.  He  set  forth  to  what  He  foresaw  would  be 
His  death  of  agony  and  shame.  As  seems  to  have  been  com- 
mon with  Him,  He  walked  alone,  and  in  front,  while  the 
Apostles  followed  in  a  group  at  some  little  distance  behind 
Him.  But  on  this  occasion  the  majesty  of  His  purpose  seems 
so  to  have  clothed  His  person  with  awe  and  grandeur— He 
seemed  to  be  so  transfigured  by  the  halo  of  Divine  sorrow, 
that— as  we  learn  from  St.  Mark— in  one  of  those  unexplained 
references  which  he  doubtless  borrowed  from  the  reminiscen- 
ces of  St.  Peter — the  disciples  as  they  walked  behind  Him 
were  amazed  and  full  of  fear."  From  His  look  and  manner 
they  felt  instinctively  that  something  more  than  usually  awful 


John  xi.  54.  '  ^^^'■'^  ^  3a. 


430  Till-:    KARLV    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

was  at  hand.  Nor  did  He  leave  them  long  in  doubt  as  to  what 
it  was.  He  beckoned  them  to  Him,  and  in  language  more 
definite  and  unmistakable  than  ever  before,  He  revealed  to 
them  not  only  that  He  should  be  betrayed,  and  mocked,  and 
scourged,  and  spit  upon,  but  even  the  crowning  horror  that  He 
should  be  crucified— dind  then  that,  on  the  third  day.  He 
should  rise  again. 

It  was  at  that  most  inopportune  moment  that  Salome  came 
to  Him  with  her  two  sons,  James  and  John,  worshipping  Him, 
begging  Him  to  grant  them  something.  The  facile  mother 
was  but  the  mouthpiece  for  the  ill-instructed  ambition  of  her 
sons.  Relying  on  her  near  earthly  relationship  to  Him,  on 
her  services  in  His  cause,  on  His  known  regard  for  them  both, 
on  His  special  affection  for  one  of  them,  they  wanted  thus  to 
forestall  the  rest,  and  to  secure  a  special  and  personal  blessing 
for  themselves.  They  wanted  thus,  and  finally,  to  settle  the 
dispute,  which  had  so  often  arisen  among  the  half-trained 
Apostles,  as  to  which  of  them  should  have  the  precedence, 
which  should  be  the  greatest  among  them.  Yet  we  must  not 
think  that  their  motive  was  altogether  earthly  in  its  character. 
It  was  not  a/l  selfishness;  it  was  not  jnere  ambition — at  any 
rate,  not  vulgar  selfishness,  not  ignoble  ambition.  In  the 
strange  complexity  of  human  motives  there  was  doubtless  a 
large  admixture  of  these  impurer  elements,  and  there  was  also 
a  complete  ignorance,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  approaching  end. 
But  there  was  also  a  loving  desire  to  be  nearest  to  Jesus,  one 
at  His  right  hand,  one  at  His  left.  They  had  thought  of  ma- 
terial power  and  splendour  in  their  interpretation  of  His  prom- 
ises. His  thoughts  had  been  of  the  cross,  theirs  were  of  the 
throne.  In  their  ignorance  they  had  asked  for  the  places  which, 
seven  days  afterwards,  were  occupied  in  infamy  and  anguish 
by  two  crucified  robbers.  Oh,  fond,  foolish  mother!  oh,  too 
presumptuous  sons!  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  not  as  ye  think. 
It  is  not  a  place  for  ambitious  precedence  and  selfish  rivalries. 
Not  there  do  Michael  and  Gabriel  contrast  the  respective  value 
of  their  services,  or  compete  as  to  which  shall  do  "the  maxi- 
mum of  service  on  the  minimum  of  grace,"  There  the  suc- 
cess of  each  is  the  joy  of  all,  and  the  glory  of  each  the  pride 
of  all.  Nor  is  there,  as  ye  vainly  imagine,  any  favouritism, 
any  private  partiality,  any  acceptance  of  men's  persons  with 
God  and  with  His  Christ,  All  are  alike  the  children  of  His 
impartial  mercy— "all  equally  guilty,  all  equallv  redeemed," 
With  Mim  many  of  the  first  shall  be  last,  and  many  of  the  last 
first,  and  many  whom  their  brethren  would  altogether  exclude 


ST.    JOHN.  431 

shall  be  heirs  of  His  common  heaven,  and  many  who,  on  earth, 
figured  as  saints,  and  great 'divines,  shall  be  far  below  the 
peasants  and  little  ones  of  His  kingdom — and,  alas!  here  on 
earth,  how  many,  glorying  in  themselves,  have  delighted  in 
anathemas  and  misrepresentations — 

"  Who  there  below  shall  provel  in  the  mire, 
Leaving  behind  them  horrible  dispraise  ! " 

But  once  more,  because  the  request  was  not  all  selfish  or 
all  ignoble,  and  because  in  true  hearts  deeper  lessons  spring 
from  loving  forbearance  than  from  loud  rebuke,  Jesus  gently 
said  to  them,  "Ye  know  not" — again,  "  Ye  knoiv  not,"  for  it 
was  ignorance,  not  badness,  from  which  their  errors  sprang 
— "Ye  know  not  what  ye  are  asking  for  yourselves.  Can  ye 
drink  the  cup  which  I  am  about  to  drink,  and  be  baptised  with 
the  baptism  wherewith  I  am  being  baptised?'"  They  say  to 
Him,  "We  can."  And  He  saith  to  them,  "My  cup  indeed 
ye  shall  drink,  and  with  the  baptism  wherewith  I  am  being 
baptised  shall  ye  be  baptised;  but  to  sit  on  My  right  hand 
and  on  My  left  is  Mine  to  give  to  those  only  for  whom  it  has 
been  prepared  by  My  Father.""  In  that  bold  answer,  '']Ve 
can'  had  flashed  out  all  the  true  nobleness  of  the  sons  of 
Zebedee.  For  the  answer  of  Jesus  had  by  that  time  partially 
undeceived  them.  It  had  shown  them  the  mistaken  nature  of 
their  chiliastic  hopes.  They  saw  that  the  blessing  for  which 
they  had  asked  had  been,  so  far  as  things  earthly  were  con- 
cerned, a  primacy  of  sorrow;  that  the  only  passage  to  Christ's 
throne  of  glory  lay  through  the  endurance  of  suffering;  that 
to  be  near  Him  was — as  the  oldest  Christian  tradition  quoted 
some  of  His  unrecorded  words — to  be  "near  the  sword  and 
near  the  fire:"^ — and  yet  they  had  not  shrunk.  Whatever  the 
price  was,  they  were  ready  to  pay  it.  To  be  near  Him  was 
worth  it  all. 

And  the  punishment  of  their  fault  came  in  part  and  at  once 
in  the  indignant  disapproval  of  their  fellow  Apostles.  The 
other  disciples,  too,  had  their  chiliastic  hopes;  they  wanted 
t/ici?-  thrones  and  their  prerogatives  and  all  that  had  been  sel- 
fish and  unworthy  in  this  attempt  of  the  Sons  of  Thunder  to 
wring,  as  it  were,  from  private  influence  or  private  kinsman- 
ship  an  exclusive  privilege,  aroused  a  strong  counter  selfish- 
ness. Doubtless  the  voice  of  Judas  was  loudest  in  the  com- 
plaint that  this  was  a  mean  attempt  to  steal  from  others  their 


1  The  Fathers  speak  of  the  triple  baptism  in  water,  by  the  Spirit,  and  in  blood. 

2  Matt.  xx.  23.  3  i  iyy\i<i  fxov  iyyi)<:  Toi)  irvpos  (,l)idymus  irt  Ps.  Ixxxvin.  8). 


432  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

fair  share  of  a  private  advantage;  that  it  was  "just  what  might 
have  been  expected  of  Salome  and  her  sons.'"  But  instantly 
the  Lord  healed  the  rising  feud.  He  called  them  all  round 
him.  He  taught  them  that  arrogant  lordship  and  domineer- 
ing despotism'  were  the  characteristics  of  Gentile  self-assertion. 
"Not  so  shall  it  be  among  you.  But  whosoever  wills  to  be- 
come great  among  you  shall  be  your  servant;  and  whosoever 
wills  to  become  first  of  you  shall  be  slave  of  all.  For  even  the 
Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister, 
and  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many." 

Yet  the  fault  and  the  rebuke  of  which  St.  John  had  had  his 
share  in  no  ways  alienated  from  him  the  affection  of  his  Lord. 
We  see  him  again  at  the  last  supper,  and  he  is  leaning  on 
Christ's  breast.  It  is  from  this  that  he  gains  his  title  in  the 
early  Church  of  "the  bosom  disciple."^  Although  he  does 
not  mention  his  own  name,  he  is  himself  the  describer  of  the 
incident.  Jesus  and  the  Twelve  are  reclining  at  the  quasi- 
paschal  meal.  Our  Lord  is  in  the  centre  of  the  couch  leaning 
on  His  left  arm.  At  His  right,  in  the  place  of  honour,  was 
perhaps  Peter,  or  perhaps — as  an  olltice-bearer  of  the  little 
band — the  traitor  Judas.  At  his  left,  and  therefore  with  his 
head  near  the  breast  of  Jesus,  is  reclining  "the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved."  The  anguish  of  the  soul  of  Jesus  wrung  from 
Him  the  groan,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  to  you  that  one  of  you 
shall  betray  Me."  The  words  fell  very  terribly  on  the  ears  of 
the  Apostles.  They  began  to  gaze  on  one  another  with  aston- 
ishment, with  perplexity,  almost  with  mutual  suspicion.*  They 
thought  that  if  any  one  knew,  John  knew  the  secret;  and  sup- 
posing that  Jesus  had  whispered  into  his  ear  the  fatal  name 
which  He  would  not  speak  aloud,  St.  Peter,  catching  his  eye 
by  a  sign,  whispered  to  him,  "Tell  us  who  it  is  of  whom  He 
speaks?"^  John  did  not  indeed  know  the  traitor's  name,  but 
leaning  back  his  head  with  a  sudden  motion,  so  as  to  look  up 
in  the  face  of  Jesus,'  he  said,  "Lord,  who  is  it?"  Then  Jesus 
whispered,  "It  is  that  one  for  whom  I  shall  dip  the  sop,  and 
give  it  him."  He  dipped  the  piece  of  bread  in  the  common 
dish,  and  gave  it  to  Judas.  Then  Satan  entered  into  him, 
and  he  went  forth  into  the  night.  Relieved  of  the  oppression 
of  that  painful  presence,  Jesus  began  those  Divine  discourses 


*  Matt.  XX.  24,  ot  itKa  tiyavdKTT^crav  ntpl  tcoi/  Bvo  aSeAc/xoj'. 

»  M.-iikx.  42.  »caTa»cupiei;oi>aii'  .   .     Karc^  waid^ovaiv.  ^  0  e-n-iaTridios. 

*  John  xiii.  22,  anopovnevot  nepl  tm'o?  Ae'yci.  5  1',,  C,  I.. 

*  John  xiii.  25.  ijnireail)v,  not  'Moaning"'  (ara/cei/aej/o?),  as  in  the  E.  V.'  but  siuMculy 
chaugntj; his  f-osture.  'Ihc  oiiTws,  which  is  read  in  15,  C,  E,  F,  etc.,  is  a  vivid  touch  of  remi- 
niM-xnce,  describing  the  actual  posture  as  in  iv.  6. 


ST.   JOHN.  433 

which  it  was  granted  to  John  alone  to  preserve — so  "rarely 
mixed  of  sorrows  and  joys,  and  studded  with  mysteries  as 
with  emeralds." 

We  see  John  once  again,  with  Peter  and  James,  in  the 
Garden  of  Gethsemane  sleeping  the  sleep  of  sorrow  and  weari- 
ness, when  it  had  been  better  had  he  kept  awake;  and  then 
we  see  him  showing  no  greater  courage  than  the  rest  when 
"all  the  disciples  forsook  Him  and  fled." 

"  'What  should  wring  this  from  thee?  ' — ye  laugh  and  ask  ; 
What  wrung  it?     Even  a  torchlight  and  a  noise, 
The  sudden  Roman  faces,  violent  hands, 
And  fears  of  what  the  Jews  might  do  !     Just  that. 
And  it  is  written  '  1  forsook  and  fled.' 
There  was  my  trial,  and  it  ended  thus."* 

But  if  he  was  one  of  those  who  fled,  he  was  the  earliest  of 
all  to  rejoin  his  Lord.  Braving  the  multitude,  and  the  peril, 
and  the  shame,  he  at  once  returned  from  his  flight,  and  fol- 
lowed the  group  who,  under  the  traitor's  guidance,  were  lead- 
ing Jesus  bound  to  the  joint  palace  of  Hanan  and  Caiaphas. 
He  even  ventured  to  enter  the  palace  with  those  who  were 
guarding  the  Prisoner."  He  gained  admission  because  he  was 
known  to  the  High  Priest.  It  is  unlikely  that  this  has  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  fact  that  he  had  some  distant  aflinity  with 
priestly  families,^  or  with  the  strange  and  probably  symbolical 
tradition  that,  in  his  old  age  at  Ephesus,  he  wore  the  pctalon 
or  golden  plate  which  marked  the  mitre  of  High  Priesthood.* 
Nor  is  it  easy  to  imagine  how  a  Galilean  fisherman  should  have 
known  anything  personally  of  these  wealthy  Sadducean  aris- 
tocrats, with  whom  he  had  not  a  single  thought  or  a  single 
sympathy  in  common.  To  me  it  seems  probable  that  he  knew 
Hanan  and  his  household  only  in  the  way  of  his  business,  and 
I  see  in  this  incidental  notice  a  fresh  confirmation  of  my  con- 
jecture that  the  duties  of  this  business  obliged  him  sometimes 
to  reside  at  Jerusalem. 

And  thus  the  beloved  disciple  stayed  with  Christ  during 
the  long  hours  of  that  night  of  shame  and  agony.  He  was 
doubtless  an  eye-witness  of  all  that  he  narrates  respecting 
Peter's  denial,  and  the  scenes  which  took  place  before  Annas, 
Caiaphas,  and  Pilate.  He  saw  Jesus — with  the  murderer  by 
His  side — standing  on  the  pavement  wearing  the  crown  of 
thorns,  and  the  purple  robe,  dyed  a  deeper  purple  with   His 


*  Browning,  A  Death  in  the  Desert.  'John  xviii.  15,  "went  in  with  Jesus." 

3  The  Virgm  Mary  was  a  kinswoman  of  Elizabeth,  who  was  the  wife  of  a  leading  priest ; 
and,  therefore,  the  sons  of  Zcbedcc,  through  their  mother,  must  have  had  some  priestly  con- 
nexions. '  Euseb.  //.  K.  V.  24.  quoting  Polycrates. 

28 


434  I'lIE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

blood.  He  heard  the  Jews  prefer  to  Him  Barabbas  as  their 
favourite,  and  Tiberius  as  their  king.  He  heard  the  bursts 
of  invohintary  pity  and  involuntary  admiration  which  wrung 
from  the  half-Christianised  conscience  of  the  cruel  governor 
the  exclamations,  "Behold  the  man!"  "Behold  your  king!" 
He  saw  Him  bear  His  cross  to  Golgotha;  and  saw  Him  cruci- 
fied; and  saw  the  two  brigands  occupying  the  places  for  which 
he  and  James  had  asked  so  ignorantly,  at  His  right  hand  and 
at  His  left. 

Four  women  stood  beside  those  crosses.  They  were  the 
mother  of  Jesus;  Salome,  His  mother's  sister;  Mary,  the  wife 
of  Clopas,  perhaps  another  sister;  and  Mary  of  Magdala. 
With  them,  alone  apparently  of  all  the  Apostles,  stood  St. 
John.  No  other  disciple,  except  standing  in  a  group  afar  off, 
was  present  during  those  awfully  agonising,  those  supremely 
crushing  moments  which  seemed  to  dash  into  indistinguish- 
able ruin  all  their  hopes,  and  to  give  an  almost  fiendish  sig- 
nificance to  the  taunts  of  priests  and  mob.  Let  us  recognise 
the  heroism,  the  faith,  the  endurance  which  enabled  the  three 
Maries,  and  Salome,  and  her  son,  to  stand  gazing  at  a  scene 
which  must  have  made  the  sword  pierce  their  souls  with  un- 
utterable agony.  Let  us  see  in  it  the  proof  that  if  Salome  and 
John  had  indeed  looked  to  share  with  Him  a  pre-eminence 
of  blessedness,  they  were  not  ashamed  to  stand  beside  Him  in 
the  hour  of  His  humiliation,  and  in  the  Valley  of  the  Shadow 
of  His  Death. 

And  even  in  His  hour  of  agony,  His  kingly  eye  was  on 
them.  To  them  were  addressed  the  second,  perhaps  the  first 
words  which  He  uttered  after  the  actual  elevation  of  His  cross.* 
"Seeing  then  His  mother  and  the  disciple  standing  by,  whom 
He  loved,  He  said  to  His  mother  'Woman,  behold  thy  son!' 
Then  He  saith  to  the  disciple,  'Behold  thy  mother!'  "  Very 
few  words,  but  there  was  compressed  into  them  a  whole  world 
of  meaning  and  of  tenderness!  And  what  can  appear  less 
strange  than  that  to  St.  John  was  entrusted  that  precious 
charge?  True  that  Christ  had  "brethren;"  but  apparently 
they  were  not  there;  or,  if  they  were  there,  it  was  only  among 
"the  many"  who  stood  "beholding  from  afar" — the  many 
whose  love  was  not  at  that  moment  strong  enough  to  over- 
come the  horror  and  the  fear.     But  John  was  there— almost 

■  The  prayer  for  His  murderers  seems  to  have  been  breathed  when  the  hands  were  pierced, 
and  l>cforc  the  cross  was  uplifted  (Luke  xxiii.  34).  'ihe  omission  by  H,  D,  etc.,  mav  l)e  due 
to  some  Icciion.-iry  arraiiKcment,  but  is  surely  insufficient  to  throw  doubt  on  its  genuineness, 
sjncc  It  IS  found  in  «.  A,  C,  l'\  (i,  otc.  Wc  cannot  tell  whether  the  promise  to  the  converted 
robber  was  spoken  before  or  after  these  words  to  His  mother  and  St.  John. 


sr.  JOHN.  435 

His  earliest  disciple;  whom  He  loved  most;  who  believed  on 
Him  unreservedly;  who  was  akin  to  Him;  whose  mother  was 
the  Virgin's  sister;  who  was  rich  enough  to  undertake  the 
charge;  whose  natural  character,  at  once  so  brave  and  so 
loving,  fitted  him  for  it;  who  had  powerful  friends;  who  was 
probably  the  only  Apostle  and  the  only  relative  of  Jesus  who 
had  a  home  at  Jerusalem,  where,  in  the  bosom  of  the  infant 
Church  which  Christ  had  founded,  it  was  fitting  that  the  Vir- 
gin should  henceforth  dwell.  "And  from  that  hour  that  dis- 
ciple took  her  into  his  own  home."' 

''From  that  Jiour;'' — he  felt  probably  that  the  Virgin  had 
witnessed  as  much  as  human  nature  could  sustain  of  that  awful 
scene.  There  would  be  no  rescue;  no  miracle.  Jesus  would 
die — would  die,  as  He  had  said,  upon  the  cross.  The  Virgin 
had  suffered  enough  of  agony;  she  had  received  her  last  fare- 
well; it  needed  not  that  she  should  witness  the  deepening 
anguish, ,  the  glazing  eye,  the  horrible  crurifragium  which 
probably  awaited  Him.  The  Beloved  Disciple  took  her  to  his 
own  home. 

But  he  must  himself  have  returned  to  the  cross,  for  he 
tells  us  expressly  and  emphatically  that  he  was  a  personal  eye- 
witness of  the  last  scenes.  He  was  standing  by  when  the 
soldiers  broke  the  legs  of  the  two  robbers  to  hasten  their 
deaths,  which  otherwise  might  not  have  happened  till  after  two 
more  days  of  lingering  agony.  He  was  close  by  the  cross 
when,  seeing  that  Jesus  was  already  dead,  a  soldier  gashed 
His  side  "with  the  broad  head  of  his  lance,"  and  "immedi- 
ately there  came  out  blood  and  water"- — to  be  for  all  the 
world  the  mystic  signs  of  imparted  life  and  cleansing  power. 
"And  he  that  hath  seen  hath  borne  witness,  and  his  witness 
is  true,  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith  things  that  are  true  that 
ye  also  may  believe."  That  witness  was  to  be  henceforth  the 
work  of  his  life; — the  winning  over  of  men  to  that  belief  was 
to  be  henceforth  the  main  end  of  all  he  did  and  all  he  wrote." 
And  to  that  incident,  narrated  by  him  alone  of  the  Evange- 
lists, he  refers  with  special  emphasis  in  the  Epistle  which  en- 
shrines his  final  legacy  to  the  Church  of  God. 

How  long  the  Apostle  stood  to  the  Virgin  in  the  place  of 
a  son  we  do  not  know.     She  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 


1  The  tradition  to  which  the  Fathers  refer  as  " ecflesiastica  historia  "  (probably  derived 
from  the  Acts  of  Leucius)  assign  another  reason.  "  Cujus  privilegii  sit  Joannes,  immo  Jottn- 
ftis  V'irgiuitas  ;  a  domino  virgine  mater  virgo  virgini  discipulo  commendatiir  "  ( Jer.  c.  jfo7'in. 
i.  26).  hi\\DV  oTi  'Iwai'i'fj  fiid  Tr\v  napQeviav  (Eph.  Haer.  Ixxviii.  10  ;  Paiilimis  of  Nola,  /1'/. 
51,  etc.).     See  Zahn,  p.  206. 

3  John  xix.  34,  Aoyxn  •   •   •  e»'i'fe»'.  '  xix.  35  :   ^X-  30« 


436  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ment  but  once  again,  when  we  see  her  united  in  prayer  and 
supplication  with  the  other  holy  women  and  the  Apostles,  and 
with  the  "brethren  of  the  Lord,"  now  at  last  fully  converted 
by  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection.  After  that  slight  notice 
she  disappears  not  only  from  Scripture  history,  but  from  early 
tradition.  It  was  unknown,  even  as  far  back  as  the  second 
century,  whether  she  died  in  Jerusalem,  where  the  tomb  of  the 
Virgin  is  now  shown,  close  to  Gethsemane;'  or  whether,  after 
more  than  eleven  years  had  elapsed,  she  accompanied  St, 
John  to  Ephesus,  and  died  and  was  buried  there. "'^ 

The  subsequent  glimpses  which  we  obtain  of  St.  John  in 
Scripture  are  not  numerous.  He  does  not  once  appear  alone, 
but  always  in  conjunction  with  St.  Peter,  and  for  twenty  years 
and  more  he  does  not  seem  to  have  manifested  any  indepen- 
dent or  original  action.  On  the  morning  of  the  Resurrection 
he  was  with  St.  Peter,  when  they  two  were  the  first  who  re- 
ceived from  Mary  of  Magdala  the  startling  tidings  that  the 
tomb  was  open  and  empty.  Instantly  they  ran  to  visit  it. 
The  swift  step  of  St.  John,  who  was  the  younger  of  the  two, 
outran  Peter;  and  as  he  stood  stooping  and  peering  into  the 
darkness  he  saw  that  Jesus  was  not  there,  and  caught  only 
the  white  gleam  of  the  linen  clothes.  But  when  Peter  came 
to  the  place  no  awe,  no  danger  of  Levitical  pollution,  could 
restrain  his  impetuous  eagerness.  He  would  see  all,  know  all. 
Instantly  he  plunged  into  the  dim  interior,  and  stood  gazing 
on  the  scene  which  presented  itself.^  The  shroud  which  had 
swathed  the  body  lay  there;  the  napkin  lay  rolled  up  in  a 
place  by  itself.  As  they  went  home  together,  the  Divine  ?ie- 
cessity  that  Jesus  should  rise  from  the  dead  dawned  first  with 
full  conviction  upon  their  minds. 

Once  more  we  see  St.  John  separately  and  as  a  distinct 
figure  in  his  own  Gospel.  He  was  with  the  Eleven  on  that 
first  Easter  evening  when  Jesus  appeared  to  them  in  the  closed 
upper  room,  and  said,  "Peace  be  with  you,"  and  showed 
them  His  hands  and  His  feet,  and  breathed  on  them,  and  said, 
"Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  He  was  with  the  Twelve 
when  Jesus  again  appeared  to  them  on  the  next  Sunday,  and 
Thomas  was  convinced.  Then  for  a  little  time  the  Appear- 
ances  of  the    Risen    Lord    seem   to   have  been  intermitted. 

•  This  supposed  tomb  \v:\s  unknown  for  at  least  six  centuries.  Nicephorus,  in  the  four- 
teenth centurv— from  whom  has  been  derived  such  a  mass  of  entirely  untrustworthy  tradition 
— s.iys  that  she  died  at  Jerusalem,  aged  fifty-nine  (//.  E.  ii.  3). 

'  Kpipiian.  llaer.  Ixxviii.  11.  'ihis  was  asserted  in  a  synodical  letter  of  the  Council  of 
tphcsus,  AD  431  It  seems,  however,  to  be  very  unlikely,  for  had  she  died  at  Ephesus  her 
grave  would  havcbccn  even  more  likely  to  be  pointed  out  than  the  grave  of  John. 

■•  John  XX.  6,  etajjAffef  .  .  .  Oewpci. 


ST.   JOHN.  437 

Driven  to  earn 'his  daily  bread,  Peter  proposed  to  resume  tiie 
fisliing,  wliich  had  for  so  long  a  time  been  abandoned, 
'i^homas  and  Nathaniel,  James  and  John,  and  two  other  dis- 
ciples, accompanied  them.  They  toiled  all  night;  but  they 
caught  nothing.  But  when  day  began  to  dawn,'  Jesus  stood 
suddenly  upon  the  beach.  They,  however,  did  not  recognise 
Him  in  His  glorified  body,"  and  in  that  unexpected  place,  as 
He  stood  with  His  figure  looming  dimly  through  the  morning 
mist.  He  said  to  them,  "Children,  have  ye  anything  to  eat?" 
They  answered,  "No."  Then  He  bade  them  cast  the  net 
on  the  right  side  of  the  ship,  and  immediately  they  were  not 
able  to  drag  the  net  into  the  boat  for  the  multitude  of  fishes. 
The  meaning  of  the  sign  flashed  at  once  upon  the  soul  of  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  He  said  to  Peter,  "//  is  the 
Loj-d !''  Instantly  Peter  had  snatched  up  his  fisher's  coat, 
and  plunged  into  the  sea  to  swim  to  land.  More  slowly  the 
rest  followed  in  the  little  boat,^  dragging  to'land  the  net  full 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty-three  fishes,  which  they  were  unable 
to  haul  into  their  ship.  When  they  got  to  land  they  saw  there 
a  charcoal  fire  with  a  fish  broiling  on  it,  and  a  loaf  beside  it, 
as  one  may  often  see  now  when  the  poor  Fellahin  are  fishing 
in  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  Jesus  bade  them  bring  some  of  their 
fish,  and  share  in  the  morning  meal.  They  dared  not  ask 
Him,  "Who  art  Thou?"  knowing  that  it  was  the  Lord. 
Jesus  brought  them  the  bread  and  the  loaf,  and  they  broke 
their  fast.  Then,  after  the  meal,  there  took  place  that  deeply 
touching  interview  in  which  Jesus  bade  the  now-forgiven  and 
deeply-repentant  Petei  to  feed  His  little  lambs,  and  to  feed 
and  tend  His  sheep,*  and  prophesied  to  him  the  martyr-death 
that  he  should  die.  Peter,  as  he  turned  away,  caught  sight 
of  John,  who  was  following  them,  and  with  sudden  curiosity 
asked,  "Lord,  but  this  man — what?"'  "If  I  will  him  to  abide 
while  I  am  coming,"  what  is  it  to  thee?  Follow  thou  IVIe." 
The  expression  was  misunderstood,  as  those  of  the  Lord  so 
often  were.  It  led  to  the  mistaken  notion  among  the  brethren 
that  that  disciple  was  not  to  die.  It  is  to  remove  that  erro- 
neous impression  that  he  relates  the  incident.  It  is  clear  from 
his  language  that  he  did  not  even  then,  in  extreme  old  age, 
understand  its  complete  significance,  because  Christ  had  never 
revealed  the  secrets  about  the  time  and  manner  of  His  coming. 


John  xxi  4,  yivo/iieiojs.  a  John  xx.  14  :  I.uke  xxiv.  31.  '  xxi.  8,  irAoiapiV. 

xxi.  15,  /Socrice  ra  apcia  fiov ;   16,  iroifiaive  ;   17,  ^oaice  ra  wpopara  ^ow. 

xxi.  21.     Kvpie,  ovTos  5e  ri  ;   Vulg.  Domitte,  hie  nutem  guid  f 

See  Canon  Wcstcott's  note  on  this  expression  (^Speaker's  Comin.  ad  loc.). 


438  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

But  his  correct  version  of  the  misquoted  words'did  not  prevent 
the  continuance  of  the  error.  Even  when  he  was  dead,  legend 
continued  to  assert  that  he  was  Hving  in  the  grave,  and  that 
liis  breath  gently  heaved  the  dust/ 


CHAPTER    XXV. 

LIFE    OF    ST.   JOHN    AFTER    THE    ASCENSION. 

"  /Etema  sapientia  sese  in  omnibus  rebus  maxime  in  humana  mente,  omnium  maxime  in 
Christo  Jesu  manifestabit."— Spinoza,  Ep.  xxi. 

After  this  St.  John  is  mentioned  but  thrice,  and  alluded  to 
but  once  in  the  New  Testament. 

i.  He  is  enumerated  among  the  eleven  Apostles  who  were 
gathered  in  the  Upper  Room  with  the  rest  of  the  little  com- 
pany of  believers  after  the  Ascension,  and  who  were  con- 
stantly engaged  in  prayer  and  supplication." 

ii.  He  was  going  up  with  Peter  to  worship  in  the  Temple 
at  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon — one  of  the  stated  hours  of 
prayer — when  Peter  healed  the  lame  man,  and  afterwards  ad- 
dressed the  assembled  worshippers,  whose  amazement  had 
been  kindled  by  that  act  of  power.  This  great  address — in 
which,  as  we  infer  from  Acts.  iv.  i,  St.  John  took  some  part 
— was  interrupted  by  the  sudden  arrest  of  the  Apostles.  They 
were  seized  in  the  sacred  precincts  by  the  dominant  Saddu^- 
cees — the  priests  and  the  captain  of  the  Temple.  As  it  was 
now  evening  the  two  Apostles  were  thrown  into  prison.  Next 
morning  they  were  haled  before  the  Sanhedrin,  which  gathered 
for  their  trial  in  the  imposing  numbers  of  all  its  three  con- 
stituent committees.  The  accused,  according  to  the  usual 
custom,  were  set  in  the  midst  of  the  semicircle  and  sternly 
interrogated.  "  The  two  Apostles — Peter  again  being  the  chief 
spokesman — gave  a  bold  and  noble  testimony,  from  which  the 
Sanhedrists  recognised  the  two  facts  that  "they  had  been  with 
Jesus,"  and  that  they  were  simple  and  unlettered  persons. 
The  Pharisees  from  the  whole  height  of  their  ignorance  looked 
down  on  them  as  "no  theologians."  Their  Galilean  dialect, 
and  their  obvious  unacquaintance  with  Rabbinic  learning  in- 
x^Uned  the  Sanhedrin  to  despise  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  were  perplexed  by  the  presence  and  witness  of  the  lame 


'  St.  Augustine  [in  Joh.cxxxs.  2)  seems  to  have  been  half  inclined  to  accept  this  strange 
and  unmeaning  legend  on  the  testimony  of  grave  people  who  imagined  themselves  to  have  wit- 
i»c»M:d  It !  -i  Acts  i.  13. 


LIFE   OF   ST.    JOHN   AFTER   THE   ASCENSION.        439 

man  who  had  undeniably  been  healed.  'J'hey  therefore  re- 
manded the  Apostles  while  they  held  a  discussion  among  them- 
selves. In  spite  of  the  severity  for  which  the  Sadducees  were 
notorious,  they  did  not  feel  justified  on  this  occasion  in  doing 
anything  more  than  threatening  them  with  worse  consequences 
if  they  ventured  to  preach  again  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  The 
Apostles  gave  them  frank  warning  that  such  threats  must  be 
in  vain,  since  it  was  a  plain  duty  to  obey  God  rather  than 
man.  Afraid,  however,  of  exciting  a  tumult  among  the  people 
who,  up  to  this  time,  sided  heartily  with  the  Christians,  and 
were  glorifying  God  for  the  recent  miracle,  the  Sanhedrin  were 
forced  to  content  themselves  with  renewing  their  threats,  and 
they  set  the  Apostles  free. 

The  return  of  Peter  and  John  to  the  assembled  brethren 
was  followed  by  a  song  of  triumphant  gladness,  and  by  another 
outpouring  of  spiritual  influences.  During  these  earlier  scenes 
of  Christian  history  there  is  no  doubt  that  St.  John  lived 
mainly  at  Jerusalem — though  he  may  have  made  short  excur- 
sions to  places  in  Palestine.  He  must  have  lived  through  the 
short  period  during  which  the  Church  adopted  the  experiment 
of  community  of  goods;  must  have  heard  of,  or  witnessed,  the 
terrible  fate  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira;  and  must  have  shared 
in  the  outburst  of  .supernatural  power,  -followed  by  multitudes 
of  conversions,  which  marked  the  early  energy  of  St.  Peter. 
He  was  arrested  with  the  other  Apostles  in  a  fresh  alarm  of 
the  priestly  party,  and  thrust  into  the  public  prison.  Having 
been  delivered  in  the  night  by  an  angel,  at  the  dawn  of  the 
next  day  they  were  once  more  led  before  the  startled  Sanhe- 
drin. This  time  they  were  arrested  without  violence,  for  the 
priests  feared  a  violent  intervention  of  the  people  on  their  be- 
half. Stung,  however,  to  madness  by  the  firm  attitude  of  the 
Apostles,  who,  to  the  remonstrances  of  the  High  Priest,  an- 
swered by  their  spokesman  St.  Peter  that  they  were  bound  to 
refuse  obedience  to  the  murderers  of  their  Lord,  the  Sanhe- 
drin seriously  debated  whether  they  should  put  them  all  to 
death,  and  were  only  saved  by  the  wise  counsel  of  Gamaliel 
from  the  commission  of  that  fatal  crime.  They  determined, 
however,  to  scourge  the  Apostles;  and  then  first  St.  John  knew 
what  it  was  to  suffer  disgrace  and  bodily  anguish  for  his  Lord. 
Put  that  anguish  failed  of  its  intended  purpose.  The  Apostles 
rejoiced  that  they  were  deemed  worthy  to  suffer  shame  for 
His  name,  and  daily  in  the  Temple  preached  the  good  news 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

iii.     Then    followed    the   appointment   of  the   Seven;    the 


440  .  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

preaching  and  martyrdom  of  St.  Stephen;  the  scattering  of 
all  the  Church  except  the  Apostles,  in  consequence  of  the 
fierce  persecution  of  Saul  the  Pharisee;  the  work  of  Philip  in 
Samaria;  the  journey  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  to  confirm  the 
new  converts,  and  the  stern  encounter  with  Simon  Magus.' 
After  this  the  two  friends  travelled  through  Samaria,  preach- 
ing in  many  of  the  villages.  Perhaps  En  Gannim  was  one  of 
those  villages,  and  by  that  time  St.  John  had  learnt  the  mean- 
ing of  the  rebuke  "Ye  know  not — ye — of  what  spirit  ye  are." 
He  saw  then  why  Jesus  had  rebuked  the  evil  wish  to  call  down 
fire  from  heaven  and  consume  them  all.  Then,  too,  he  learnt 
what  Jesus  meant  when  He  had  said  to  them  by  the  well  of 
Jacob,  "Lift  up  your  eyes  and  gaze  on  the  fields,  because  they 
are  white  unto  harvest  already.  .  .  I  sent  you  to  reap  that 
wherein  ye  have  not  toiled.  Others  have  toiled,  and  ye  have 
entered  into  their  toil."^ 

iv.  After  this  the  name  of  St.  John  disappears  entirely 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  We  cannot  tell  what  view  he 
took  at  first  of  the  bold  conduct  of  Peter  in  admitting  to  bap- 
tism a  Gentile  soldier  and  his  household — in  "going  in  to  men 
uncircumcised  and  eating  with  them."  We  can  only  feel  sure 
that  Peter's  conviction  would — in  the  close  union  which  had 
ever  subsisted  between  them — have  gone  far  to  help  his  own. 
By  the  time  when  he  wrote  the  Apocalypse  he  had  learned  to 
look  upon  the  Gentiles  as  true  and  equal  members  of  the 
Church  of  God.=* 

It  was  four  or  five  years  after  the  conversion  of  Cornelius* 
that  Herod  Agrippa  I.  seized  James,  the  elder  brother  of  John, 
and  put  him  to  death  with  the  sword.  We  are  told  so  little  of 
St.  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  that  we  do  not  know  by  whab 
bold  deed  or  burning  word  he  had  provoked  his  doom.  We 
may  judge  with  what  mingled  feelings  of  anguish  and  exulta- 
tion St.  John  would  witness  or  hear  of  the  murder  of  the  elder 
brother  with  whom  he  had  spent  his  life.  St.  James  was  the 
first  martyr  of  the  Apostles.  How  vast  were  to  be  the  changes 
in  the  Church  and  in  the  world  during  the  long  half  century 
before  John  passed  away  to  join  his  brother — the  last  survivor 
of  that  high  and  glorious  band!  But,  doubtless,  he  was  in 
some  measure  prepared  for  this  lengthening  of  his  life.  In 
tiiat  memorable  scene  on  the  misty  lake  at  early  morning  Jesus 


fno.;„iVf  -»-  1  1  ''"'^"'f.^  question  whether  in  the  Apocalypse  the  Gentiles  are  placed  on  a 
f^n^  of  aUolutc  equality  w.ih  the  Jews,  sec  Gebhardt,  /^c-f/r///^  of  the  ApocalyJ>se,  pp. 

**•  4  A.D.  44. 


T.IFE   OF   ST.    JOHN   AFTER   THE   ASCENSION.      -441 

had  spoken  to  Peter  of  martyrdom;  to  John  He  had  spoken 
only  of  tarrying  while  He  was  coming.  It  is  as  though  He 
had  said,  "Let  finished  action  follow  Me,  shaped  by  the  ex- 
ample of  My  passion;  but  let  contemplation,  now  commenced, 
abide  until  I  come,  to  be  perfected  when  I  have  come.'" 
"The  one  Apostle,"  says  Canon  Westcott,  "is  the  minister  of 
action,  whose  service  is  consummated  by  the  martyrdom  of 
death;  the  other  is  the  minister  of  thought  and  teaching, 
whose  service  is  perfected  in  the  martyrdom  of  life." 

V.  The  name  of  St.  John  occurs  but  once  in  the  thirteen 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Perhaps  in  the  early  years  of  St.  Paul's 
stormy  ministry  the  two  would  not  have  been  naturally  drawn 
together.  They  would  be  separated  in  part  by  the  memories 
of  "the  great  persecution,"^  of  which  Saul  had  been  the  most 
furious  agent,  and  in  which  John  may  have  lost  many  friends. 
They  would  be  still  more  separated  by  deeply-seated  differ- 
ences of  character.  St.  John,  as  we  have  said,  was  wholly 
unlike  the  effeminate  pietist  of  Titian's  or  of  Raphael's  pic* 
tures.  We  have  seen  that  there  was  within  him  a  spring  of 
most  fiery  vehemence.  Yet,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  this  pas- 
sion was  not  often  or  easily  aroused.  None  could  have  written 
as  St.  John  wrote  who  had  not  thought  long  and  deeply;  and 
the  slight  part  which  he  is  recorded  to  have  taken  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church  during  the  first  twenty-five  years  of  its 
existence  shows  that  he  was  either  absorbed  in  the  care  of  the 
Virgin,  or  that  he  was  living  a  life  of  meditation  and  devotion. 
This  was  almost  necessitated  by  the  atmosphere  of  persecution 
which  was  continuously  breathed  by  the  Church  of  Jerusalem. 
But  St.  John  must  have  been  naturally  inclined  to  a  quiet  and 
contemplative  life.  Men  of  very  opposite  temperaments  are 
not  readily  drawn  together,  and  there  must  have  been  much 
in  the  almost  feverish  energy  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles 
which  would  not  at  once  win  the  sympathies  of  the  beloved 
disciple.  Besides  this,  the  glimpse  which  we  are  allowed  to 
see  of  John  shows  him  still  devoted  to  the  outward  life  of  the 
Jewish  system.  He  was  a  daily  worshipper  in  the  Temple  at 
the  stated  hours  of  prayer,  and  remembered  even  to  his  last 
days — though  with  ever-widening  vision  and  ever-deepening 
insight  into  the  meaning  of  the  words — that  "salvation  was 
from  the  Jews."  One,  therefore,  who  loved  peace  as  he  loved 
it — one  who  could  only  be  prepared  by  the  training  of  experi- 
ence for  the  immense  development  which  the  Church  was  to 


Aug.  in  Joh.  cxxlv.  3.  2  Acts  viii.  i,  /neyas  fiiwyjiids. 


443  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

undergo  from  its  earlier  conditions  in  the  days  of  Galilee — 
one  who  as  a  mystic  lived  in  the  absorbing  realisation  of  a 
Divine  idea — would  hold  aloof  from  the  loud  questions  which 
hejran  to  agitate  the  Church,  and  almost  unconsciously  would 
feel  inclined  to  shrink  from  him  who  stirred  them  up.  It  is 
easy  to  conceive  that  to  one  trained  as  John  had  been  in  the 
intensest  feelings  of  nationality,  and  in  the  most  absolute  de- 
votion to  the  Law,  the  characteristics  of  St.  Paul  were  not 
attractive.  Paul's  breadth  and  cosmopolitanism,  his  emanci-' 
pation  from  Judaic  prejudices,  his  vehement  dialectics,  his 
irresistible  personality,  his  daring  expressions,  the  indepen- 
dence of  his  course  of  action,  the  bitter  feelings  which  he 
kindled  in  the  hearts  of  men  among  whom  John  lived,  and 
whom  he  could  not  but  respect — all  tended  to  prevent  any 
close  union  between  the  two.  When  Saul  first  returned  from 
Damascus  an  ardent  and  controversial  convert,  St.  John 
seems  to  have  been  absent  from  Jerusalem.^  At  any  rate,  St. 
Paul  did  not  see  him,  either  on  that  occasion  or  on  his  s.ubse- 
quent  visit  to  convey  to  the  elders  the  alms  of  the  Gentiles  at 
Antioch.  But  on  the  occasion  of  the  third  visit  of  St.  Paul 
to  Jerusalem  with  Barnabas,  in  order  to  settle  the  question — so 
momentous  to  the  future  of  the  Church — whether  or  not  the 
yoke  of  circumcision,  and  therewith  of  all  Levitism,  was  to  be 
laid  on  the  necks  of  the  Gentiles — St.  Paul  tells  us  that  St. 
John  lotjs  at  Jerusalem  as  one  of  the  Three  Pillar-Apostles, 
and  that  he  met  him  in  conference.  I  have  elsew^here  de- 
scribed that  most  important  scene  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
St.  John  was  at  that  time  by  conviction  a  fervid  Jewish  Chris- 
tian. He  was  living  with  and  acting  with  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, side  by  side  with  St.  Peter,  w^hoat  Jerusalem  conformed 
to  all  their  usages.  Both  of  them — though  all  three  "were 
lield  to  be  pillars" — were  overshadowed  by  the  commanding 
personality  of  the  Lord's  brother,  St.  James,  the  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem.  Between  the  first  receptionof  the  delegates  from 
Antioch  and  the  stormy  meeting  in  which  the  question  w^as 
debated,  St.  Paul,  with  the  consummate  statesmanship  which 
was  one  of  his  intellectual  gifts,  had  privately  secured  the  as- 
sent of  the  three  leaders  of  the  Church  to  his  views  and  pro- 
posals. All  three  were  convinced;  all  three  gave  to  him  and 
Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship;  all  three  recognised 
their  mission  to  the  Gentiles.  Nay,  they  not  only  recognised 
this  mission,  but  formally  handed  it  over  to  the  care  of  those 

>  Gal.  i.  XQ. 


LIFE   OF   ST.    JOHN   AFTER   THE   ASCENSION.        443 

who  had  hitherto  been  its  all  but  exchisive  ministers.  They 
made  to  Paul  and  Barnabas  but  two  requests — both  most 
readily  granted:  the  one  that  they  should  themselves  be  left 
undisturbed  in  the  ministry  of  the  circumcision;  the  other 
that  the  needs  of  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem  should  not  be 
overlooked  in  the  wealthier  churches  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
fact  of  this  mutual  recognition — this  interchange  of  Christian 
pledges  in  a  spirit  of  friendship — is  the  best  answer  to  the 
dreams  of  those  who  would  persuade  us  that  St.  John,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  condescended  to  attack  St.  Paul  himself,  as  well 
as  his  followers,  in  language  of  unmitigated  hate. 

This  seems  to  have  been  the  only  occasion — at  any  rate,  it 
is  the  only  one  known  to  us — on  which  there  was  any  meeting 
between  the  Beloved  Disciple  and  the  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. St.  John  took  no  part  in  the  great  debate.  He  seems 
to  have  shrunk  from  everything  which  bore  any  resemblance 
to  noisy  publicity.  On  this  occasion  he  left  the  speaking  to 
St.  Peter  and  St.  James,  only  supporting  their  concession  by 
his  vote  and  silent  acquiescence.  His  was  not  the  temperament 
vrhich  delights,  as  did  that  of  St.  Paul,  in  ruling  the  stormy 
elements  of  popular  assemblies.  In  the  earlier  days,  when  he 
and  Peter  worked  together  in  close  communion,  it  is  Peter 
who  on  every  occasion  comes  forward  as  the  chief  speaker. 
Yet  we  must  not  infer  from  this  that  the  relation  of  John  to 
the  elder  Apostle  was  at  all  like  that  which  subsequently  arose 
between  Paul  and  Barnabas.  In  the  first  missionary  journey 
Paul  took  the  lead  by  virtue  of  his  superior  intellect  and  more 
vigorous  energy.  He  was,  in  human  estimate,  the  abler  and 
greater  of  the  two.  It  was  not  so  with  St.  Peter.  His,  doubt- 
less, was  the  readier,  the  more  practical,  the  more  oratorical 
ability;  but,  judging  by  their  writings,  we  should  again  say 
that  in  human  estimate  St.  John's  was  the  profounder  and 
more  gifted  soul.  But  his  sphere  was  by  no  means  the  sphere 
of  daily  struggles  and  controversies — 

"  Greatest  souls 
'  Are  often  those  of  whom  the  noisy  world 

Hears  least." 

We  can  think  of  St.  John  in  the  cave  at  Patmos;  we  cannot  fancy 
him  addressing  a  yelling  mob  on  the  steps  of  Castle  Antonia. 
Plis  was  to  be  a  very  different,  yet  a  no  less  necessary  work. 
It  was  his  to  be  guided  by  the  Spirit  through  the  education  of 
outward  circumstances  to  truths  deeper,  richer,  more  compre- 
hensive, more  final  than  it  had  been  granted  even  to  St.  Paul 
to  set  forth. 


444  'I'Ht:   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

From  this  time  we  lose  sight  Of  St.  John  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, so  far  as  any  external  record  or  notice  of  him  is  con- 
cerned. All  our  further  knowledge  respecting  the  outward 
incidents  of  his  life  is  reducible  to  the  fact  that  when  he  wrote 
the  Apocalypse  he  was  "in  the  isle  that  is  called  Patmos,  be- 
cause of  the  word  of  God  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ." 
But,  meagre  as  is  this  one  personal  fact,  we  learn  much  re- 
specting him  from  early  tradition,  and  from  the  precious  leg- 
acy of  iiis  own  writings.  From  these  sources  we  are  ible  to 
trace  the  Apostle  in  his  advance  towards  Christian  perfection 
— in  the  expansion  of  his  enlightened  intellect,  in  the  deepen- 
ing of  his  universal  love. 

It  will  be  better  to  separate  the  story  of  his  remaining 
years  as  it  is  handed  down  to  us  by  early  tradition,  from  the 
proofs  furnished  by  his  own  writings  of  his  gradual  growth  in 
the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Yet 
tradition  helps  us  to  realise  the  conditions  under  which  the 
beautiful  but  partial  dawn  which  we  witness  on  the  banks  of 
Jordan  and  the  shores  of  Galilee  broadened  at  last  into  the 
perfect  day. 

Many  details  of  his  history  are  left  in  the  deepest  obscurity. 
During  a  period  of  at  least  eighteen  years  we  neither  know 
where  he  lived  nor  what  he  did.  In  the  New  Testament  we 
lose  sight  of  him  in  a.d.  50,  at  the  date  of  the  Synod  of  Jeru- 
salem; we  do  not  meet  with  him  again  till  we  find  him  in  the 
isle  called  Patmos,  in  a.d.  68. 

Perhaps  some  readers  may  feel  surprise  that  the  latter  date 
should  be  given  with  any  confidence.  It  was  the  general  be- 
lief of  antiquity  that  his  residence  in  Patmos  was  owing  to  his 
banishment.  FA'en  this  has  been  disputed  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  only  an  inference  from  his  expression  that  he  was  there 
"because  of  the  word  of  God  and  because  of  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  Christ."  These  words  have  been  interpreted  by  some 
to  mean  that  he  retired  from  Ephesus  to  the  seclusion  of  the 
rocky  islet  in  order  to  concentrate  his  mind  on  the  thoughts 
and  visions  which  were  being  revealed  to  him.  There  are, 
however,  no  certain  grounds  for  setting  aside  the  old  tradition. 
It  furnishes  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  his  language, 
and  well  accords  with  his  saying  that  he  was  "the  companion" 
of  those  to  whom  he  was  writing,  "in  their  tribulation,  and  in 
the  kingdom  and  endurance  of  Jesus  Christ."  But  the  date 
of  this  banishment,  if  banishment  it  were,  is  most  variously 
conjectured.     Epiphanius'  says  that  it  took  place  in  the  reign 

'  J/acr.  li,  33. 


LIFE    OF   ST.    JOHN    AFTER   THE   ASCENSION.        445 

of  Claudius;  Theophylact  and  the  superscription  of  a  Syrian 
MS.  say  that  it  was  in  the  reign  of  i^Iero.  Irenceus,'  Jerome,' 
and  Sulpicius  Severus'  agree  that  it  was  in  the  reign  of  Domi- 
tian,  and  Eusebius  in  his  Chronicon  places  St.  John's  banish- 
ment in  the  fourteenth  year  of  that  reign;*  Dorotheus  places  it 
in  the  reign  of  Trajan.  On  the  other  hand,  Clemens  of  Alex- 
andria" and  Tertullian"  do  not  venture  to  name  the  particular 
emperor,  and  Origen^  observes  that  St.  John  himself  is  silent 
on  the  subject.  But — as  I  hope  to  show  hereafter — there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt  respecting  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse, 
and  therefore  none  as  to  St.  John's  stay  in  Patmos,  if,  as  I  my- 
self believe,  he  was  the  author  of  that  book.  That  he  was  the 
author  is  the  all  but  unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity  from 
the  days  of  Justin  Martyr  to  those  of  the  great  Fathers  of  the 
third  century,  and  it  is,  I  believe,  the  inference  to  which  the 
book  itself  most  decisively  points.  The  notion  that  it  was 
written  either  by  John  the  Presbyter,  or  by  the  Evangelist 
John  Mark,"  requires  for  its  support  far  weightier  and  more 
decisive  evidence  than  any  which  modern  ingenuity  has  even 
attempted  to  provide. 

Of  this  hiatus  of  eighteen  years  in  the  life  of  the  great 
Apostle  tradition  has  very  little  to  tell  us,  and  what  it  does 
tell  us  is  of  no  value.  That  he  left  Jerusalem  is  certain,  and  he 
probably  left  it  for  ever.  This  }nay  have  been  at  the  end  of  the 
twelve  years  during  which,  as  tradition  says,  Jesus  had  bidden 
His  Apostles  to  stay  in  the  Holy  City;'-*  but,  more  probably,  it 
was  at  a  much  later  period.  What  were  the  circumstances 
which  induced  him  to  leave  his  own  home,'"  we  cannot  tell, 
but  it  may  have  been  the  result  of  that  terrible  combat  be- 
tween Romish  oppression  and  Jewish  exasperation  which 
arose  during  the  Procuratorships  of  Albinus  and  Gessius 
Florus.  We  have  seen  that  the  agitation  which  affected  the 
minds  even  of  Christian  Jews  had  given  occasion  to  the  warn- 
ings of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  that  "a  man's  wrath  worketh 
not  the  righteousness  of  God. ' '  The  death  of  the  Virgin, "  the 
murder  of  "the  Lord's  brother" — perhaps  precipitated  by  his 
own  stern  rebukes — the  meditated  flight  of  the  Christians  to 


1  Iren.  c.  Haer,  v.  30,  3.  2  £)e  Virr.  Illustr.  9  3  Sacr.  Hist.  ii.  31. 

^  H.  E.  iii.  18  ;  xx.  23  ;  and  Ckron.     He  says  he  returned  from  exile  in  the  reign  of  Trajan. 

6  Quis  dtv.  Salv.  42.  "«  De  Prnescr.  Haer.  36.  ^  Comin.  in  Matt.  iii.  p.  719. 

8  Beza,  Proleg-g-.  in  Apoc;  Hitzig,  Ueber  Joh.  Afa'kus.  1843. 

"  Apollonins,  afi.  Euseb.  //.  E.  v.  18  ;  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vi.  5,  guoting  frofti  'the  Frac- 
dicatio  Petri.  'O  rd  i6ia,  John  xix.  27. 

*•  Nicephorus,  H.  E.  ii.  42.  There  is  nothing  to  be  said  for  the  conjecture  of  ILironius  and 
Tillemont  that  the  Virgin  accompanied  St.  John  to  Asia.  aWa/bioi)  Aeyerai  on  enr]yayeTO  fieff' 
eavTOv  Tr]v  ayiav  napOevov  (Epiphan.  Haer.  Ixxviii.  §  11).  This  statement  was  made  at  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  (Labbe,  Concil.  iii.  547). 


440  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRlbTIANITY. 

Pella— the  actual  outbreak  of  the  Jewish  war,  any  of  these 
may  have  been  St.  John's.motive  for  thus  changing  the  settled 
habits  of  his  life.  Perhaps  by  this  time,  when  a  race  of  young 
men  was  growing  up  around  him  to  whom  the  Crucifixion  was 
but  a  tale^vhich  they  heard  from  the  lips  of  their  fathers,  he 
may  have  been  led  to  the  conviction  that  the  day  of  Jerusa- 
Icni  had  passed  away  forever,  that  Jewish  obduracy  had  finally 
hardened  itself  against  the  message  of  the  Gospel.  Any 
peace  which  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  had  enjoyed  had  been 
owing  to  the  famines,  and  political  troubles,  which  had  di- 
verted the  attention  of  the  Jews  from  the  Christians  to  the 
desperate  struggle  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Romans 
and  their  Herodian  nominees.  Perhaps  it  had  been  due,  to 
an  even  greater  degree,  to  the  legal  "righteousness"  of  St. 
James,  his  faithfulness  to  all  Jewish  traditions,  his  conciliatory 
and  respectful  attitude  towards  the  Mosaic  Law.  But  the 
death  of  James  seemed  to  open  a  new  chapter  in  the  history 
of  the  Mother  Church.  Simon,  son  of  Alphaeus,  another  kins- 
man of  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  was  chosen  to  succeed 
him.  St.  John  may  have  felt  that  his  work  at  Jerusalem  was 
now  finished;  that  his  thoughts  had  ripened;  that  his  labours 
were  needed  in  wider  regions  of  the  mission  field.  Of  this  we 
are  sure — that  he  would  leave  himself  to  be  guided  in  all  the 
main  decisions  of  his  life  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  God.' 

Two  common  legends  account  for  his  presence  in  Patmos 
by  a  supernatural  deliverance  from  martyrdom.  It  is  said  that 
he  was  plunged  into  a  caldron  full  of  boiling  oil  at  the  Latin 
gate  of  Rome,  and  so  far  from  suffering,  only  came  out  of  the 
caldron  more  vigorous  and  youthful  than  before.^  Another 
story,  frequently  represented  in  Christian  art,  says  that  an  at- 
tempt was  made  to  kill  him  by  a  poisoned  chalice,  but  that  "it 
was  rendered  harmless  when  he  signed  over  it  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  and  the  poison  fled  from  it  in  the  form  of  a  little  asp.'" 

•  He  may  even  have  sUyed  in  Jerusalem  till  Nero  sent  Vespasian  to  suppress  the  Jewish 
rcvd't  (I.iikc  xxi.  20:  Jos.  li.  J.  ii.  25  ;  Kuseb.  iii.  5).  One  tradition  says  that  on  leaving 
Jcnisalcm  he  went  and  preached  to  the  Parthians.  It  rests  on  such  very  shadowy  foundation 
that  it  may  safely  be  set  aside  (see  Lampc,  p.  48,  and  su/»ii,  p.  423).  Even  if  there  were  not 
some  stranRc  error  in  St.  Augustine's  reference  to  his  Epistle  as  being  written  "to  the  Par- 
//ii.int"  iOunfif.  r.viing.  ii.  iq),  his  writing  to  them  would  not  prove  that  he  had  preached 
amon-i  them,  and  there  is  no  trace  that  he  did. 

'  Icrt.  lif  l^rnrscr.  Ilacr,  36,  "in  oleum  igneum  demersus,  nihil  passus  est."  Jer.  nd7<. 
-V?'"'-  ';,''*'  -"^"'^  '1  "^tatt.  XX.  23  :  Origen,  in  Matt.,  Horn.  12.  Haronius  savs  truly  enough 
of  Icrtulhan  that  he  was  so  credulous  that  he  would  snatch  up  any  old  woman's  story  with 
iividity  (.-/«««/.  A.ii.  aoi).  On  these  two  legends  see  the  various  references  in  Zahn,  Acta 
jonntns,  cxvu.-cxxu. 

,,.*/"K»"*«i"c.  '^"{{{'V-.;  Isidor.  Hispalensis,  Df  Vit.  et  Mart.  Sand.  73:  Ps  Abdias, 
Hni.  A^tt.  V.  so  ( Fabric.  Cod.  AfiKr.  ii.  575)  ;  Cave,  Lives  of  the  Apostles.  Papias  tells 
tlic  Mme  story  ofjoscn  Itarsabbas,  and  it  may  be  alU-gorically  deduced  from  Mark  xvi.  18. 


LIFE    OF   ST.    JOHN    AFTER    THE    ASCEiNSION.        447 

The  silence  of  Iren^eus,  Hippolytus,  Eusebius,  Chrysostom, 
Sulpicius  Severus,  and  many  others  is  alone  sufficient  to  prove 
that  these  are  unauthorised  fables. 

But  these  legends  bring  us  face  to  face  with  the  question, 
Was  St.  John  ever  at  Rome?  It  is  true  that  the  legends  fur- 
nish no  conclusive  evidence,  and  that  there  is  no  authentic 
trace  of  St.  John's  visit  to  Rome  in  the  history  of  the  Roman 
Church.'  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  throughout  the  Apo- 
calypse so  intensely  vivid  a  realisation  of  the  horrors  of  the 
Neronian  persecution,  and  the  wickedness  of  the  agents  by 
which  it  was  brought  about,  that  we  feel  strongly  inclined  to 
believe  that  the  visions  of  that  book  reflect  the  terrible  experi- 
ences of  an  eye-witness.  St.  John  may  have  reached  Rome 
as  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  did,  either  as  an  Evangelist  or  as  a 
prisoner,  during  the  final  spasms  of  that  dreadful  movement 
which  first  caused  the  blood  of  martyrdom  to  flow  in  rivers. 
In  any  case  the  Apocalypse  is  the  echo  of  a  harp  whose  per- 
turbed strings  have  been  smitten  by  fierce  and  blood-stained 
hands,  and  then  have  been  swept  by  the  mighty  wind  of  in- 
spiration. St.  John  did  not  indeed  perish  as  did  his  brother 
Apostles  during  those  years  of  horror,  but  the  legends  of  the 
poison-cup  and  the  boiling  oil  may  be  dim  reflections  of  the 
narrowness  of  the  escape  which  ended  in  what  was  (perhaps 
erroneously)  believed  to  be  his  deportation  to  a  rocky  island, 
and  his  condemnation  to  toil  as  a  labourer  in  its  quarries. '"' 

We  must,  however,  be  content  to  remain  in  ignorance  as 
to  the  causes  of  his  presence  in  Patmos.  The  tone  of  his  let- 
ter to  the  Seven  Churches  speaks  of  an  intimate  knowledge 
of  their  circumstances,  and  the  possession  of  an  unquestioned 
authority  over  them.  He  must  have  resided  in  Asia  Minor 
before  we  find  him  at  Patmos,  and  the  attempt  to  prove  that 
his  connection  with  Ephesus  is  apocryphal  must  be  pronounced 
to  have  egregiously  failed.  That  attempt,  first  made  by 
Liitzelberger,  in  1840,  has  been  seriously  followed  up  by  Keim, 
in  1867,'  and  by  the  Dutch  theologian  Scholten,  in  1871,'  but 
it  surely  shows  "the  very  intemperance  of  negation."     Not 


1  It  is  curious  that  in  the  Latin  translation  of  the  Journeys  of  the  Dirtne  (TreptoSoi)  by  tlie 
Pseudo-Prochorus  {Bihl.  Pair.  1677),  an  attempt  is  made  to  fix  his  martyrdom  at  Pome. 
The  MS.  was  found  in  the  library  of  the  monaster^'  of  St.  Christodulus  in  Patmos.  See  Zahn, 
Acta  Jontmis,  p.  191.  Tischendorf,  Act.  Apocr.  266-271.  Hippolytus  exclaims  "'lell  me, 
blessed  John,  wh.^t  didst  thou  see  and  hear  about  Pabylon?"  De  Christ,  et  Anttc/irtst.  36. 

-  Victorinus  and  Primasius  say  that  he  was  "in  metallum  damnatus."  'Phere  are  no 
mines  in  Patmos,  but  metallum  may  m.-an  "a  stone-quarry."  It  was  not  one  of  the  islands 
usually  selected  for  deportations. 

3  Keim,  Jesti  von  Nazarn.  i.  161-167  ;  iii.  44-45- 

*  Scholten,  Dcr  Apost,  ')onnn.  in  Klein-Azie  (I.cyden). 


44S  TlIK    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

only  Baur,  and  Strauss,  and  Renan,  but  even  the  most  ad- 
van'ced  followers  of  the  Tubingen  school— such  as  Schwegler, 
Zellcr,  and  Volkmar— admitted  the  cogency  of  the  evidence 
for  a  fact  which  till  the  last  ten  years  has  been  universally 
accepted.  The  notion  that  the  Apostle  John  was  mistaken 
for  the  Presbyter  John — if  ever  there  was  such  a  person — is 
wholly  baseless.  Even  if  we  accept  the  wild  conjecture  that 
the  Apocalypse  is  by  John  Mark  the  Evangelist,  or  by  the 
supposed  Presbyter  John — conjectures  which  crumble  to  noth- 
ing before  the  first  serious  examination — it  results  from  the 
whole  manner  and  phraseology  of  the  book  that  the  writer 
meant  himself  to  be  regarded  as  the  Apostle.  And  such  being 
the  case,  it  is  equally  clear  that  his  residence  in  Asia  Minor  is 
assumed  as  a  thing  well  known  to  all  readers  of  the  book.  It 
would  have  been  absurd  for  a  forger  to  start  with  an  assump- 
tion which,  if  false,  would  at  once  have  proved  that  he  was 
not  the  person  whom  he  pretended  to  be.  Even  if  we  set 
aside  the  authority  of  such  men  as  St.  Clemens  of  Alexandria,^ 
and  Origen,^  the  fact  that  St.  Polycarp,  in  a.d.  i6o,^  who  had 
actually  seen  and  heard  the  Apostle,  appeals  to  his  authority 
for  the  Eastern  custom  of  keeping  Easter  on  Nisan  14,  ought 
alone  to  be  decisive.  Polycrates,  in  a.d.  190,  who  as  Bishop 
of  Ephesus  was  a  man  likely  to  be  well  informed,  made  the 
same  appeal,'  as  also  did  St.  Irenoeus  in  his  letter  to  Florinus.^ 
When  we  remember  the  statement  of  St.  Irenoeus  that  as  a  boy 
Tabout  A.D.  150)  he  had  heard  from  the  mouth  of  Polycarp, 
Bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  many  other  elders,  many  memorable 
things  about  John,  the  Lord's  disciple,  who,  as  a  successor  to 
St.  Paul,  lived  in  Ephesus,  wrote  the  Revelation  and  the  Gos- 
pel, and  died  at  a  great  age  in  the  reign  of  Trajan,^ — does  it 
not  require  an  extraordinary  stretch  of  credulity  to  suppose 
that  he  made  a  confusion  between  John  the  Bosom-friend  of 
the  Lord,  the  beloved  Apostle  and  Evangelist,  the  immortal 
survivor  of  the  Apostolic  choir,  and  a  "nebulous  presbyter," 
whose  very  existence  is  problematical?  And  who  can  believe 
that  when  Polycrates  ranks  John  with  the  Apostle  Philip  as 
"the  two  great  stars  of  Asia,'"  he  is  thinking  only  of  this  du- 


•  Clem.  Alex.  Quis  Div.  Snlv.'\  42,  and  ap.  Euseb.  iii.  2-. 

'  ()rij{.  ///  (..f$i.  (F.uscb.  iii.  i,  1). 

»Tcrt.  Dt  rnieicr.  Haer.  32;  Jer.  De  Virr.  Illustr.  17;  Chron.  Pasc/i.  p.  252. 
Waddington  places  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  in  154  or  155  ' 

:  -J/-  ^-''^f'.'-  "•  '8'  24.      (Comp.  Ifaer.  III.  iii.  4.)  5  Ruseb.  v.  20,  24. 

.  7V"7;y  •'"»  testimony  more  than  outweighs  the  mere  siioice  of  Ignatius  (ad  EJ>k.  12  ; 
nit  7 rail.  5).  s>  \  j-  ' 

noi'thc^ii'l"*'''  ''■  ^'  "'■  -^ '■     '  ^*=''^^'<^'  w''h  Renan,  that  the  Philip  intended  was  the  Apostle, 


LIFE   OF   ST.    JOHN   AFTER   THE   ASCENSION.        449 

blous  presbyter?  Eusebius  does  indeed  in  one  place  (iii.  39) 
infer  from  a  well-known  passage  that  Papias  had  been  a  per- 
sonal hearer  of  Aristion  and  John  the  Presbyter,  and  not  of 
John  the  Apostle.  In  the  style  of  Papias,  so'  inartificial  and 
inexact,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  certain  that  this  is  his  mean- 
ing; but  even  if  it  is,  the  inference  drawn  from  this,  that  St. 
John  had  not  lived  in  Asia,  has  no  weight  against  the  clear 
statements  of  Polycarp  and  Irenasus.  It  has  never  been 
doubted  that  Cerinthus  taught  in  Asia,  and  from  the  first  the 
Church  has,  in  many  ways,  connected  the  names  of  Cerinthus 
and  St.  John.  By  a  strange  fatality  the  writings  of  St.  John 
were  actually  attributed  to  Cerinthus  ((^^^^'-^///j-/ whom  they  were 
perhaps  written)  by  the  Alogi,  who  denied  the  doctrine  of  the 
Logos.'  A  scholar  so  accomplished  as  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 
dria, in  expressing  his  doubts  about  the  Apocalypse,  thinks  it 
worth  while  to  record  the  legend  that  Cerinthus  had  written 
it,  and  fraudulently  prefixed  to  it  the  name  of  John.^  But  even 
if  it  should  be  proved  that  the  Apocalypse  was  not  written  by 
John,  it  still  bears  decisive  testimony  to  the  belief  that  he  was 
the  acknowledged  head  of  the  Christians  of  Asia. 

Relegating  to  the  Excursus^  the  intricate  inquiry  as  to  the 
identity  of  the  Apostle  with  John  the  Presbyter,  we  may  here 
be  allowed  to  assume  that  the  belief  of  the  Church — unques- 
tioned for  nineteen  centuries — is  still  to  be  accepted.  It  is 
not  difficult  to  discover  why  St.  John  should  have  fixed  his 
new  home  in  the  famous  capital  of  Proconsular  Asia.  The 
Church  in  that  city  was  large  and  flourishing.  It  stood  at 
the  head  of  many  churches  of  great  importance.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  city  as  an  emporium  of  the  Mediterranean  made  it 
an  eminently  favourable  centre  for  missionary  labours.  The 
Christians  of  Asia  were  liable  to  severe  temptations,  and  had 
long  been  tried  by  the  influx  of  various  errors.  Everything 
called  for  the  presence  of  St.  John.  St.  Paul  was  imprisoned, 
if  not  dead,  and  had,  at  any  rate,  bidden  farewell  to  Ephesus 
for  ever.*  The  other  Apostles  were  scattered  or  dead.  The 
Church,  largely  composed  of  Judaising  Christians,  naturally 
looked  for  the  support  of  an  Apostle  from  Jerusalem.  St. 
John  was  alone  available  for  the  work;  nor  is  it  impossible 
that  he  may  have  felt  all  the  more  need  to  obey  the  call  be- 
cause, like  St.  James,  he  may  have  been  aware  of  the  danger 
which  arose  from  the  perversion  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  by 

1  Epiphan.  Haer.  li.  3.     The  other  Fathers  are  unanimous — Chrys.  Prae/.  in  F.phes.  ; 
Theod.  Mops.  Prooem.  in  Cat.  Pair.  ;  Tert.  c.  Marc,  iv,  5.  ^  Ap.  Enseb.  iii.  28. 

*  bee  Excursus  XIV.  "  St.  John  in  Ephesus."  ■»  Acts  \x.  25,  38. 

29 


450  THE    EAKr.V   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Gnostic  and  Antinomian  heresiarchs,  who  were  ever  mixing  it 
up  with  alien  elements  borrowed  from  Greek  or  Eastern  specu- 
lation. 

That  St.  John's  individual  leanings  long  continued  to  be 
in  favour  of  the  Judaists  is  proved  by  the  impression  which 
he  left  upon  the  minds  of  those  with  whom  he  had  lived ;^  as 
well  as  by  the  countenance  he  gave  to  the  Quartodecimans, 
who  kept  the  Passover  on  the  14th  of  Nisan.  It  is  proved 
most  of  all  by  the  general  tone  of  the  Apocalypse,  which,  amid 
many  resemblances,  differs  so  widely  from  that  of  the  Gospel 
and  Epistles.  That  the  Apocalypse  was  written  many  years 
before  the  Gospel  and  Epistles,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  a 
certain  conclusion.  The  difference  of  style  alone-^-apart  from 
the  deeper  differences  on  which  I  shall  dwell  hereafter — is 
sufficient  to  prove  it.  The  Greek  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles, 
though  Hebraic  in  the  structure  of  its  sentences,  is  yet  per- 
fectly smooth  and  correct.  It  is  the  Greek  of  one  who  had 
long  been  familiar  with  the  language.  But  the  Greek  of  the 
Apocalypse  is  so  ungramraatical  and  so  full  of  solecisms  as  to 
be  the  worst  in  the  entire  Greek  Testament.  Now  it  is  natu- 
ral that  St.  John,  after  so  many  years  in  which  he  had  spoken 
little  but  Aramaic,  should  write  Greek  imperfectly;  and  that 
he  should  subsequently  gam  power  in  writing  Greek  by  resi- 
dence in  heathen  cities  and  among  a  Greek-speaking  popula- 
tion. But  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  have  written  the 
Gospel  and  Epistles  in  pure  Greek,  and  then,  after  years  of 
familiar  practice,  should  have  come  to  write  the  language  in- 
comparably worse.  The  attempts  to  explain  the  dift'erence  of 
style  by  the  peculiarities  of  Apocalyptic  writings  are  impos- 
sible after-thoughts,  wholly  inadequate  to  account  for  the 
phenomena.  But  besides  this,  without  the  invention  of  a 
moral  miracle,  we  cannot  regard  it  as  possible  that,  by  writing 
the  Apocalypse  after  the  Gospel,  St.  John  could  have  gone 
back  from  clear  thought  to  figures,  and  have  reduced  the  full 
expression  of  truth  to  its  rudimentary  indications.' 

Perhaps  it  needed  nothing  less  than  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
tf)  teach  to  St.  John,  as  it  taught  to  most  Jewish  Christians, 
that  though  Judaism  had  been  the  cradle  of  Christianity  it  was 
not  to  be  its  grave.     Their  intense  belief  in  the  symbolism  of 

*  f^X-<  by  the  stOH'  that  he  was  a  priest  (tepev's)  wearingthe  high-priestlv  mitre,  Ex.  xxviii. 
30(l<.ly<T.  a/.  Kuscb.  v.  24).  ISiu  it  must  l,e  borne  in  mind  tliat^  St.  John  res-arded  all 
h'nV'*'"™"?'^^*''*.'"'"^''''^"''"^  ^'8h  priests  (i.  6;  xx.  6 ;  and  ii.  17,  where  the  mystic 
TK^l,^,T"l".        r"*u'»V''"u '/.'•'*''= '-^""^  ''>"^1  ThiMnmim  which  were  put  inside  the  ephod). 

»  On ll.Tr  "[  '*'*'  ^:"'^     't.V'*-"^  metaphorically  in  7W/.  A'//.  Pair.  iii.  8. 
On  this  subject  sec  Canon  Westcott,  lutrod.  to  Gospel,  p.  Ixvxvi. 


LIFE    OF   ST.    JOHN    AFTER   THE   ASCENSION.        45 1 

the  Mosaic  worship,  their  identification  of  faithfulness  and 
orthodoxy  with  obedience  to  the  Levitic  law,  were  opinions  so 
inveterate  that  nothing  could  shake  them  save  that  visible  inter- 
position which,  when  Christianity  was  fairly  planted  in  the 
world,  rendered  impossible  the  fulfilment  of  Mosaic  ordinances. 
The  extreme  Judaisers  had  so  long  encouraged  themselves  in 
the  belief  that  St.  Paul  was  a  dangerous,  if  not  a  wicked, 
teacher,  that  they  could  not  be  convinced  that  after  all  they 
had  been  immeasurably  inferior  to  him  in  insight,  until  their 
eyes  were  opened  by  the  catastrophe  which  closed  the  order 
of  the  old  ages,  and  which  was  the  First  Coming  of  Christ.  St. 
John  of  course  would  not  have  agreed  with  these  Judaisers 
in  their  extreme  views,  but  no  one  can  read  his  Gospel  and 
Epistles,  written  some  time  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
without  seeing  how  much  his  knowledge  of  the  truth  had 
been  widened  since  he  wrote  the  Apocalypse  in  the  days  when 
the  Holy  City  had  not  as  yet  been  made  a  heap  of  stones. 

It  has  been  said,  and  with  scarcely  any  exaggeration,  that 
the  Apocalypse  is  of  all  the  books  in  the  New  Testament  the 
most  intensely  Jewish,  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  least  so. 
In  the  Apocalypse  "Jew"  is  a  term  of  the  highest  honour;  in 
the  Gospel  it  usually  describes  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  the  Phar- 
isees and  Priests.  Yet  these  differences  are  capable  of  ex- 
planation, and  we  must  remember  that  they  are  found  in  con- 
nexion with  close  resemblances.  Even  in  the  Gospel  there  is 
no  higher  eulogy  than  "an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  is  no 
guile." 

We  must  be  content  to  remain  in  uncertainty  as  to  the  chro- 
nology of  this  part  of  St.  John's  life,  and  as  to  the  circum- 
stances which  took  him  to  Ephesus.'  We  may,  however,  be 
sure  that  his  residence  alike  in  the  rocky  islet  and  in  the 
thronged  Ionian  capital  were  very  fruitful  in  his  divine  edu- 
cation. In  Ephesus  he  saw — perhaps  for  the  first  time — the 
wicked  glittering  life  of  a  great  Gentile  city,  with  its  merchan- 
dise not  only  of  fine  linen,  and  purple,  and  scarlet,  and  vessels 
of  ivory  and  precious  wood,  and  amomum,  and  incense,  and 
wine,  and  horses,  and  chariots, — but  also  of  ''slaves^  a  fid  souls 
of  men.''  There,  on  the  centre  of  the  western  coast  of  Asia 
Minor,  he  could  as  from  a  beacon-tower  look  back  over  the 
plains  and  valleys  watered  by  the  Hermus  and  Maeander,  and 

'  A  legend  preserved  by  the  author  of  the  Li/e  of  Timotheus,  of  which  some  extracis  are 
furnished  by  Photius,  says  that  he  was  shipwrecked  on  the  coast  of  Ephesus  during  the  Nero- 
nian  persecution.  It  is  also  mentioned  by  Simeon  Metaphrastes,  Vit.  Joh.  i  (Lampe,  I'ro' 
leg.  p.  46), 


452  Tin:  early  days  of  Christianity. 

while  he  kept  watch  over  all  the  Churches  of  Asia,  his  voice 
could  sound  like  a  trumpet  of  God  over  the  Isles  of  Greece, 
and  westward  to  the  great  cities  of  Greece  and  Italy,  and  Gaul 
and  Si)ain.'  Amid  that  busy  scene,  with  its  harbour  thronged 
with  the  sails  of  the  civilised  world,  and  its  Temple  frequented 
by  nations  of  worshippers,  there  could  have  been  little. time 
for  contemplation  in  the  midst  of  the  work  which  life  in  such 
a  city  entailed  upon  a  Christian  Apostle.  But  in  his  retire- 
ment at  Patmos,  whether  voluntary  or  compulsory,  he  w^ould 
have  leisure  for  peaceful  thought.  Patmos,  with  its  strangely 
shattered  configuration,  is  little  more  than  a  huge  rock,  and 
it  can  never  have  had  many  inhabitants.  In  its  grotto  of  La 
Scala,  on  its  bare  hills,  by  its  projecting  promontories,  as  he 
sat  alone — with  man  distant  from  him,  but  God  near — he 
could  meditate  in  undisturbed  devotion.  He  might  naturally 
pass  into  mystic  ecstacy,  as  he  sat  under  some  grey  olive  and 
looked  up  in  prayer  to  the  glow  of  heaven,  or  gazed  on  the 
silent  expanse  of  the  sea,  which  under  the  burning  sun  gleams 
so  often  like  a  sea  of  glass  mingled  with  fire.  No  outward 
circumstances  could  have  been  more  providentially  ordered  to 
bring  out  his  noblest  faculties  than  the  interchange  of  a  life 
spent  "amid  the  madding  crowd's  ignoble  strife,"  with  one 
spent  in  seclusion  and  solitude,  wherein  he  could  commune 
with  his  own  thoughts  and  hear  the  voice  of  God  speaking  to 
him,  and  be  still.' 

The  history  of  Patmos  itself  throws  no  light  on  this  inter- 
esting subject.  It  is  scarcely  alluded  to  by  any  ancient  au- 
thor, which  is  the  more  surprising  because  it  furnished  a  con- 
venient point  at  which  vessels  could  touch  on  their  way  from 
Ephesus  to  Italy.  It  is  only  mentioned  incidentally  by  Pliny 
and  Strabo,^  and  there  seem  to  be  no  adequate  grounds  for 
Kenan's  assertion  that  in  the  first  century  it  was  very  popu- 
lous. A  sterile  rock,  about  eighteen  miles  in  circumference,* 
can  never  have  been  important.     We  have  no  mention  of  its 

•  M.-igclcb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  ii.  2  ;  see  too  Chrysost.  Horn.  i.  in  Johan. 

»  "  Paimcjs  rcsscmhie  i  toutcs  Ics  lies  de  I'Archipel  :  mer  d'azur,  air  limpide,  del  serein, 
rochcrs  aux  sommcts  (Icnteles,  i  peine  revetus  par  moments  d'un  leger  duvet  de  verdure. 
L  .tspcut  est  nu  ct  sterile;  mais  Ics  formes  ct  la  couleur  du  roc,  le  bleu  vif  de  la  mer,  sillonnoe 
dc  l>c:aix  oiscaiix  blancs,  oppose  aux  tcints  rougeatres  des  rochers  sont  quelque  chose  d'ad- 
piinihlc  (Kenan.  CAHthhrUt,  p.  376).  "Silent  lay  the  little  island  before  me  in  the  morn- 
ing iwih({ht.  Here  and  there  an  olive  breaks  the  monotony  of  the  rocky  waste.  The  sea  was 
tull  as  the  K"vc.  I'atmos  reposed  in  it  like  a  dead  saint.  .  .  .  John— that  is  the  thought  of 
the  isl.-ind.  I  he  island  iK-Ioni^s  to  him  :  it  is  his  sanctuary.  The  stones  speak  of  him,  and  in 
every  bean  he  lives"  (lischcndorf,  Reise  in's  Morgcnland,  ii.  257  ;  see  too  Ross,  Reisen 
au/  f:rttch.  Inuln  n.  123,  and  CucJrin,  Descr.  de  Pile  de  Patmos,  1856).  It  consists  of 
three  ma«MS  of  r«K:k  umtu.l  by  narrow  isthmuses 

»  Stralw   X.  p.  488  ;  Pliny.  //.  N.  iv.  12  ;  Thuc.  iii.  23. 
loiinief.^rt,  /  oy.  du  Levant,  i.  168.     In  his  time  there  were  only  300  inhabitants.     See 
on  ralnius,  .Stanley's  Sermons  in  the  East,  p.  230. 


LEGENDS   OF   ST.    JOHN.  453 

being  used  for  the  deportation  of  criminals,  and  when  St. 
John  says  that  he  was  there  "for  the  word  of  God  and  the 
testimony  of  Jesus,"  the  phrase  is  indecisive.  Patmos  was, 
indeed,  so  completely  in  the  highway  of  the  Icarian  sea,  and 
its  port  was  so  convenient,  that  it  would  not,  under  ordinary 
circumstances,  have  suited  the  object  for  which  islands  were 
selected  as  places  of  exile.  It  is  curious  that  the  pseudo-Pro- 
chorus  in  his  Feriodoi  says  nothing  about  any  banishment  to 
Patmos,  and  does  not  even  mention  the  Apocalypse,  but  says 
that  St.  John  went  there  to  write  his  Gospel.  We  can  trace 
no  special  influences  of  the  scenery  on  his  mind,  unless  it  be 
in  the  mention  of  "a  burning  mountain  in  the  midst  of  the 
sea,"  which  maybe  a  reminiscence  of  the  then  active  volcano 
of  Santorin,  the  ancient  Thera.^ 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 


LEGENDS    OF    ST.   JOHN. 


Aet  5e  K(k\.  napaSoaei  xpTjciOai.     ov  yap  ■travra.  a-sro  t%  06tas  ypac^^s  hvvarai  Xa^i^aveaQai, 
— Epiphan.  Haer.  Ixi.  i. 

No  account  of  St.  John  would  be  complete  without  some  esti- 
mate of  the  many  legends  which  cluster  round  his  later  years. 
We  may  say  at  oflce  that  some  of  them,  if  true  at  all,  belong 
— in  spirit  at  any  rate — far  more  to  the  epoch  in  which  he 
wrote  the  Apocalypse  than  to  that  in  which  he  wrote  the  Gos- 
pel. 

I.  One  of  the  best-known  of  these  tells  us  that  once  at 
Ephesus  he  was  entering  into  one  of  the  great  public  baths 
(thermae),  when  he  was  informed  that  Cerinthus  was  in  the 
building.  Thereupon  he  instantly  turned  away,  exclaiming, 
"Let  us  fly,  that  the  thermae  fall  not  on  our  heads,  since  Cer- 
inthus, the  enemy  of  the  truth,  is  therein."'  In  another  ver- 
sion of  the  anecdote,  given  by  Epiphanius,  the  name  of  the 
mythical  Ebion'  is  substituted  for  that  of  Cerinthus,  and  this 
variation  happily  serves  to  throw  great  doubt  on  a  story  which 
is  still  quoted  with  applause  by  religious  partisans,  because  it 
is  supposed  to  furnish  a  sanction  for  violent  religious  animosi- 


1  Pliny,  H.  N.  iv.  12,  §  23  :  Sen.  Qu.  Nat.  ii.  26  ;  vi.  21.  But  it  is  just  as  easy  to  sup- 
pose that  St.  John  may  have  sailed  past  Stromboli  in  going  to  Rome. 

2  Iren.  c.  Haer.  iii.  3  ;  Euscb.  //.  E.  iii.  28  ;  iv.  14  ;  Theodorct,  ii.  3  ;  Nicephorus,  iii.  30. 
Besides  the  original  authorities  here  quoted,  I  may  refer  to  Lampe  [Proleg.  68).  Krcnkel  {Der 
Apostel  Johannes,  pp.  21-32),  and  Stanley  {Sermons  on  the  Apostolic  Age). 

3  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxx.  24. 


454  niH   KARLV   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ties.  We  catch,  indeed,  in  this  story  the  old  tone  of  the  passion 
and  intolerance  of  the  Son  of  Thunder,  at  a  period  of  his  life 
when  we  mii^ht  have  hoped,  from  other  indications,  that  he  had 
climbed  to  that  region  "where  above  these  voices  there  is 
peace."  Cerinthus  was  a  Jewish  Christian,  and  the  earliest 
of  the  Christian  Gnostics.  He  was  one  of  those  who  believed 
in  two  principles,  making  a  distinction  between  God  and  the 
DemiurgLis  or  Creator.'  Further  than  this,  he  was  one  of  the 
founders  of  Docetism,  in  that  form  of  it  which  spoke  of 
"Jesus"  as  being  a  mere  man,  on  whom  "Christ,"  the  Son 
of  the  Most  High  God,  had  descended  at  His  baptism  in  the 
form  of  a  dove,  leaving  Him  again  at  the  moment  of  His  cruci- 
fixion. We  can  understand  how  abhorrent  such  views  would 
be  to  St.  John;  how  they  would  run  counter  to  his  inmost  and 
most  precious  convictions.  But  in  the  idly  superstitious  no- 
tion that  the  thermae  must  therefore  necessarily  fall  and  crush 
the  heretic,  we  could  only  trace  (were  the  story  true)  the  spirit 
which  had  once  wished  to  perform  Elijah-miracles  of  fire — the 
spirit  of  one  who  forgot  for  the  moment  that  Christ  came  to 
save,  not  to  destroy — that  God  maketh  His  sun  to  shine  upon 
the  evil  and  upon  the  good,  and  sendeth  His  rain  upon  the 
just  and  upon  the  unjust.^ 

There  is  another  reason  for  hoping  that  this  favourite  story 
of  religious  hiitred  is  a  fabrication.  It  was  not  the  usual  cus- 
tom of  Jews  to  frequent  the  public  baths.  They  could  hardly 
do  so  without  rendering  themselves  liable  to  the  grossest  in- 
sults. Further,  the  baths  were  almost  invariably  adorned  with 
statues,  and  it  would  have  been  strange  indeed  if  those  statues 
were  not  sometimes  those  of  heathen  deities.  The  iconoclasm 
of  the  Jew  made  such  places  detestable  to  him,  and  it  was 
thought  an  instance  of  reprehensible  laxity  when  the  younger 
Gamaliel  entered  a  bath  which  contained  one  of  the  common 
statues  of  Aphrodite.'      Then,   too,    the  Ionian  baths   were 

>  Iren.  c.  finer,  i.  25 ;  Hippol.  Philosoph.  vii.  33. 

"A  111.111, '•  said  the  Rabbis,  "  should  not  wade  through  water,  or  traverse  any  dangerous 

1  i';»"y  with  an  apostate,  or  even  a  wicked  Jew,  lest  he  be  overtaken  in  the  same 

[httzur  .y«7.//<.  f.  10,  I)).     This  is  not  the  spirit  of  Eph.  v.  7,  or  Rev.  xviii.  4, 

.not  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  life,  which  St.  Paul  expressly  told  his  converts 

1  l"  .1.''  '1      "i!     "^"n  *"  forbid  (i  Cor.  v.  10),  but  participation  in  the  sins  of  others.     It  is  more 

like  ihc  heathen  nouon— 

"  Vetabo  qui  Cereris  sacrum 

Vuluarit  arcanum  sub  isdem 
Sit  trabilnis.  fragilemve  mccum 
.  Si.lvat  phaseloii,"  etc. 

\J,^l  -•  baths,  St.  John  would  certainly  not  have  been  supposed  by  any  human 
"«>"':  If  a  Uartaker  <,f  the  pv  I  r1,.,.H.."  ,.f /-.>,.;„.i,.,.  /-  i„u :.\    ^ 


fa  'partaker  .,f  the  evil  deeds"  of  Cerinthus  (2  John  10,  ii). 
V"    I      '"','■■''■'■'"''-■  ^^'''ch  the  Rabbi  made.  "  th.it  the  statue  was  a 


iint^„  .    ,       ,   .,      .    7u'.ri    "  ■•^,"'^"^^  wmcii  un;  n.aooi  maue.  ••  th.Tt  ttie  statue  was  a  mere 
rh?A"iMic.'  "  more  good  sen.se  than   the  impetuous  conduct  ascribed  to 


LEGEiNDS   OF   ST.    JOHN.  455 

thought  to  be  very  luxurious.  We  are  told  that  for  this  reason 
they  were  never  used  by  St.  James.'  Epiphanius  also  asserts 
that  St.  John  "used  neither  bath  nor  oil.""  Cerinthus  was 
surely  not  worse  than  thousands  of  bad  Christians  and  worse 
Pagans — Pagans  dyed  in  every  extreme  of  vice — whom  St. 
John  would  be  quite  sure  to  encounter  if  he  went  to  pubhc 
l3aths  at  all.  Strange  to  say — heretical  as  were  the  specula- 
tions of  Cerinthus  —  he  is  actually  asserted  by  one  ancient 
writer  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse.  That  con- 
jecture is  absurd,  but  it  surely  shows  that  Cerinthus — who,  in 
virtue  of  his  restless  and  impressionable  nature,  had  thus  be- 
come "the  spectre  of  St.  John" — could  not  have  been  so  fla- 
grantly wicked  as  to  render  it  dangerous  to  be  under  the  same 
roof  with  him!  The  story  is  surrounded  by  difficulties,  and  I 
for  one  am  glad  to  dismiss  it  from  my  memories  of  the  holy 
Apostle,  as  an  anachronism  in  the  history  of  his  life,  and 
wholly  unworthy  of  the  later  period  of  his  career.  If  there 
be  any  truth  in  it,  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  expiring  flash 
of  that  old  intolerance  w4iich  Christ  had  reproved;  or  again, 
any  slight  basis  of  truth  in  it  may  be  reducible  to  the  utter- 
ance of  a  strong  metaphor  by  way  of  expressing  marked  dis- 
approval.^ In  that  case  the  Apostle  would  not  have  meant  it 
to  be  taken  literally  and  d'un  trop  grand  scrieux.  That  it  was 
so  taken  is  due  to  Polycarp — through  whom  we  get  the  story 
third-hand  in  Irenseus — and  of  Epiphanius,  who  repeats  it 
fourth  or  fifth-hand,  and  tells  it  wrongly.  Polycarp,  who 
would  not  notice  Marcion  in  the  streets,  and  when  challenged 
as  an  acquaintance  replied — not  surely  in  the  true  Christian 
spirit,  which  is  peaceable  and  meek  and  gentle — "Yes,  I  know 
thee,  the  first-born  of  Satan:"  Irenaeus,  who  tells  these  stories 
with  approval;  Epiphanius;  who  spent  his  credulous  age  in 
hunting  for  heresy  in  the  dioceses  of  wiser  men  and  better 
saints  than  himself — would  not  have  been  likely  to  soften  the 
features  of  an  anecdote  w4iich  had  an  evil  effect  even  on  the 
saintly  mind  of  John  Keble,  and  is  but  too  dear  to  the  odium 
ccclesiasticum.'^ 

1  Iren.  c.  Hacr.  v.  33.  2  Epiplian.  Haer.  Ixxviii.  14. 

5  Epiphanius,  though  glad  to  retain  the  story,  is  puzzled  by  the  visit  to  the  baths,  and  thinks 
that  it  must  have  been  a  quite  unusual,  providential  visit ;  that  he  must  have  gone  "  compelled 
by  the  Holy  Spirit"  (r\va^/K6.<jQy\  virb  rou  ayiov  nrev/u.aros),  to  give  him  an  opportunity  for  the 
valuable  anathema  !  Piaronius  [Annal.  ad  a.d.  74)  thinks  to  reconcile  Epiphanius  with  Ire- 
nreus  by  the  suggestion  that  perhaps  doth  Cerinthus  and  Ebion  (!)  might  have  been  in  the  bath, 
a  conjecture  which  Ittigius  (D>j  Haeresiarchis,  p.  58)  approves.  See  on  the  story  generally, 
Eampe,  Proleg.  p.  6g.  I  am  sorry  that  Holtzmann  should  say  (Schenkel,  Bib.  Lex..,  s.  v. 
Joh.  d.  A/>ost.)  "  Diese  Tradition  ist  von  alien  .  .  .  die  glaubwiirdigste,"  assigning  as  his 
reason  its  accordance  with  the  character  of  St.  John. 

■*  Dean  Stanley  {Ser})to?is  on  the  Afiostolic  Age.,  p.  273).  to  show  how  stories  do  not  lose 
by  repetition,  quotes  the  purely  imaginary  sequel  of  the  story  in  Jeremy  Taylor  (Life  of  Christ, 


456  THI-:  i;arly  days  of  Christianity. 

2.  Another  curious  story  was  current  in  the  Churches  of 
Asia  long  after  the  Apostle's  death.  It  rests  upon  the  author- 
ity of  Papias, '  who  professes  to  have  heard  it  from  Polycarp 
and  others,  who  had  heard  it  from  St.  John,  It  is  as  fol- 
lows:— "The  Elders  who  had  seen  John,  the  disciple  of  the 
Lord,  related  that  they  heard  from  him  how  the  Lord  used  to 
teach  about  those  times,  and  to  say,  'The  days  will  come  in 
which  vines  shall  spring  up,  each  having  ten  thousand  stems, 
and  on  each  stem  ten  thousand  branches,  and  on  each  branch 
ten  thousand  shoots,  and  on  each  shoot  ten  thousand  clusters, 
and  on  each  cluster  ten  thousand  grapes,  and  each  grape  when 
pressed  shall  give  five-and-twenty  measures  of  wine.  And 
when  any  saint  shall  have  seized  one  cluster,  another  shall 
cry,  "I  am  a  better  cluster,  take  me;  through  me  bless  the 
Lord."  '  And  he  used  to  add,  'These  things  are  believable 
to  believers.'  And  when  Judas  the  traitor  did  not  believe, 
and  asked,  'How  will  such  products  be  created  by  the  Lord?' 
the  Lord  said,  'They  shall  see  who  shall  come  to  those  times,'  "' 

What  are  we  to  make  of  this  strange  story?  It  comes  to 
us  only  fifth-hand,  in  a  free  Latin  translation  of  a  passage  of 
Papias;  and  Papias,  on  whose  authority  it  rests,  was  generally 
looked  on  as  a  weak  and  credulous  person.  To  make  it  still 
more  suspicious,  it  is  found  also  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch. 
As  to  its  right  to  belong  to  the  agrapha  dogmata^  or  unre- 
corded sayings  of  Christ,  two  suppositions  alone  are  possible 
— either  that  it  rests  on  no  foundation,  or  that  it  is  due  to  an 
unintelligent  literalism  which  has  mistaken  some  bright  symbol 
used  by  our  Lord  in  the  genial  human  intercourse  of  His  hap- 
pier hours.  He  may  have  been  speaking  with  His  Apostles 
of  the  festal  anticipations  which,  in  the  common  notions  of  the 
people,  were  mingled  with  their  Messianic  hopes;  and  in  touch- 
ing on  their  true  aspect — the  aspect  which,  for  instance,  makes 
the  wedding  festival  a  picture  of  the  Lord's  kingdom — He 
may  have  used  some  such  words  in  the  half-playful  irony  which 
marks  some  of  the  finer  shades  of  His  familiar  language.  Per- 
haps He  may  only  have  meant  to  expose  the  carnal  notions  of 
Jewish  chiliasm,  which  appear  again  and  again  in  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Rabbis.     If  so,  St.  John— fond  at  that  time,  as  the 


xji.  2},  that  the  bath  did  fall  down,  and  Ccrinthus  was  crushed  in  the  ruins  !  Jeremy  Taylor, 
however,  was  not  the  .mentor  of  this  story.  It  is  first  found  in  the  JUenchus  Hacresium,  by 
rraleolus,  />*«,,  add.t  I'rat«olus,  etc.,  at  apud  primitivac  ecclesiac  auctores  ahum  est  de 
nac  re  Mlcntum"  (IttiKuis,  Haertsian/i.  p.  58). 

»  On  I'apias  see  the  Kxcursus  on  "John  the  Presbyter." 
ftwi"!!";/  .'T-  "■  "•  ^  '•  *'•"''*=^  ^^-  ''•■  '"•  '"'>■«•  ••  Kouth,  Rel.  Sacr.  p.  9.     Grabe  rightly 
w^K^WmIIk        "^'■"«'^f,'""=*t  be.  reckoned  among  the  Mvfli/cwTepa  Ti.va.  and  feVai  Trapa/SoAaf, 
wnich  t-uscbun  charKcs  Papias  with  recording.  r  r-         7 


LEGENDS   OF   ST.    JOHN.  45/ 

Apocalypse  shows,  of  material  symbolism — may,  with  due  oral 
explanation,  have  repeated  some  of  His  words.  A  literal- 
minded  hearer  like  Polycarp  may  have  repeated  the  tale  on 
the  authority  of  St.  John,  while  he  robbed  it  of  all  the  nuances 
which  alone  gave  it  any  beauty  or  significance.^  It  would 
become  still  more  prosaic  and  material  in  the  writings  of  a 
commonplace  reporter,  and  the  last  traces  of  its  real  bearing 
might  easily  evaporate  in  the  loose  translation  and  paraphrase 
of  Irenteus. 

In  this  point  of  view  the  story  has  a  real  value.  It  shows 
us  that  we  can  only  attach  a  modified  credence  to  any  report 
intrinsically  improbable,  even  when  it  comes  to  us  attested 
by  one  who  professes  to  have  known  at  least  two  of  the  Dis- 
ciples of  the  Lord.^  If  the  anecdote  be  based  upon  fact  at  all, 
it  has  come  to  us  so  reflected  and  refracted  through  the  me- 
dium of  a  weak  mind  as  to  have  lost  its  real  significance.  Ex- 
perience shows  that  a  story  told  second-hand,  even  by  an 
honest  narrator,  may  be  so  tinged  in  the  narrator's  subjectivity 
as  to  convey  an  impression  positively  false.  We  are  thus 
obliged  to  discount  the  tales  and  remarks  for  which  Irenaeus 
refers  us  to  the  authority  of  "the  Elders,"^  by  whom  he  seems 
chiefly  to  mean  Papias  and  Polycarp.  Now  Eusebius  does 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  Papias  was  a  source  of  error  to  Iren- 
geus  and  others  who  relied  on  his  "antiquity. "  When  Irenaeus 
says  that  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  is  canonical;  that  the  head  of 
the  Nicolaitans  was  the  Deacon  Nicolas;  and  that  the  version 
of  the  LXX.  was  written  by  inspiration; — we  know  what  esti- 
mate to  put  on  his  appeals  to  apostolic  tradition.  But  there 
is  one  instance  of  mistake  or  credulity  even  more  flagrant. 
The  whole  Christian  world  unites  in  rejecting  the  assertion 
that  our  Lord  was  fifty  years  old  when  he  died,  although  Ire- 
naeus asserts  it  on  the  authority  of  "elders  who  received  it 
from  the  Apostles.'"  If  in  these  particulars  Irenaeus  followed 
too  hastily  the  credulous  Papias,  he  may  have  derived  the 
harsher  elements  of  the  story  about  Cerinthus  from  the  aged 
Polycarp.  The  accentuation  of  that  dubious  anecdote  is  what 
we  should  expect  from  the  old  man  whose  way  of  expressing 
disapproval  of  heresy  was  not  to  refute  it,  but  indignantly  to 

*  So  Eusebius  says  of  Papias  that  he  failed  to  understand  the  apostolic  traditions  which  he 
received,  ra  kv  vnoSeiyixacrt  np'o<;  avrSiv  /hu^ikw?  eiprj/aeVa  n.r\  (rvveiapcucoTa  (//.  A",  iii.  39). 

2  Namely,  Aristion  and  "the  Presbyter  John."  Renan  needlessly  conjectures  that  the 
true  readinij  of  Papias  in  this  passage  is  a  re  'Apiariojv  koX  o  npecrfivTepos  'lojaci/ijs  oi  tou 
livpiov  /txa^TjTai    [jLiaffr/Tw^]   Keyovtri  (Kuseb.  iii.  39). 

^  "  Audivi  a  quodam  Presbytero :  quidam  ante  nos  dixit;  virb  tou  KpeiTTOVO<:  r\ij.iav 
eipTjTat,"  etc.     See  his  forms  of  quotation,  collected  in  VVestcott,  On  the  Canon,  p.  80. 

*  See  for  these  opinions  Iren.  i.  26  ;  ii.  22  ;  iii.  21  ;  v.  20,  §  2. 


458  rilK    KARLV   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

stop  his  ears.  The  description  of  the  passion  and  vehemence 
of  Polycarj)  given  by  Irenaeus  in  his  fine  letter  to  Florinus  ex- 
actly resembles  the  conduct  attributed  to  St.  John.  Irenaeus 
says  that  if  Polycarp  had  heard  the  views  of  Florinus,  "lean 
testify  before  God  that  the  blessed  and  apostolic  elder,  crying 
out  Toud,  and  stopping  his  ears,  and  exclaiming  in  his  usual 
fashion,  '  Oh,  good  God,  to  what  times  hast  thou  kept  me  alive, 
that  I  endure  such  things  J  '  would  have  fled  away  from  the  place 
in  10 hie h  he  had  been  sitting  or  standing  when  he  had  heard  such 
words.''  Here  we  have  indeed  the  story  of  St.  John  and  Cer- 
inthus  in  all  its  distinctive  features!  But  how  ineffectual  and 
how  little  Christ-like  is  such  a  method  of  meeting  error!  How 
widely  does  it  differ  from  the  calm  reasoning,  and  "  Ye  there- 
fore do  greatly  err,''  oi  the  Divine  Master!  Neither  Papias 
nor  Ireucneus  are  safe  authorities  for  stories  like  these.  Papias 
has  evidently  fallen  into  some  confusion,  and  Irenseus  has 
probably  mixed  up  his  reminiscences  of  Polycarp  with  Poly- 
carp's  reminiscences  of  St.  John.' 

3.  Far  different  is  another  story  related  for  us  at  full  length 
by  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  and  worthy  in  every  respect  of  the 
great  Apostle.  We  may  assume  that  it  rests  on  some  founda- 
tion, because  it  is  full  of  touches  which  could  not  easily  have 
been  invented.  It  shows  St.  John  to  us  in  the  full  tide  of  his 
apostolic  activity,  appointing  and  reproving  bishops,  visiting 
and  directing  Churches,  and  yet  finding  time  to  care  for  in- 
dividual souls,  loving  the  young,  and  willing  to  brave  any 
danger  in  order  to  rescue  them  from  temptation.  I  will  tell  it 
mainly  in  the  words  of  St.  Clemens  himself.' 

"But  that  you  may  be  still  more  confident,  when  you  have 
thus  truly  repented,  that  there  remaineth  for  thee  a  trustworthy 
hope  of  salvation,  hear  a  legend — nay,  not  a  legend  but  a  true 
narrative — about  John  the  Apostle,  handed  down  and  pre- 
served in  memory.  When,  on  the  death  of  the  tyrant,  he 
passed  over  to  P^phesus  from  the  island  of  Patmos,  he  used  to 
inake  missionary  journeys  also  to  neighbouring  Gentile  cities, 
i.i  some  places  to  appoint  bishops,  and  in  some  to  set  in  order 
whole  Churches,  and  in  some  to  appoint  one  of  those  indicated 
by  the  Spirit.     On  his  arrival  then  at  one  of  the  cities  at  no 


•  Kuftcb.  //.  E.  V.  20.     Sec 


a  n-'n       t'  ",'  "°"     '^'^'^  "'""'^  excellent  rcmnrks  in  Lampe's  Prolei;oviena,  pp.  67-71. 

_  {jutt  Uiv.  .Salv.c.  42  Perhaps  the  life  of  Apostolic  joiirnevings,  of  which  this  story  fur- 
ii»n«-^  n  »rn.v..  may  nhow  that  even  if  Timothy  was  "bishop"  of  Ephesus  there  would  have 
If'  "twecn  his  fimcti.jns  and  the  Apostolic  duties  of  St.  Jolin.     15ut  we  do  not 

.  uothy  returned  to  Kphesus  or  not  after  the  visit  to  Rome,  which  we  may  as- 

*""  '"-■  "*  '"?  "'■8«=n'  summons  of  St.  Paul  (2  Tim.  iv.  9).     ']he  notion  of  a  double 

n.l^'»  21. /'/'■'  ';'.'""»'*--«''"<=c».rc"mcis'onand  of  the  uncircumcision— which  is  mentioned  in 
iiic  .ipottoUc  LoHttifutums  (vii.  16),  docs  not  agree  with  the  indications  of  the  Apocalypse. 


LEGENDS    OF   ST.    JOHN.  459 

great  distance,  of  which  some  even  mention  the  name,  .... 
he  saw  a  youth  of  stalwart  frame  and  winnino;  countenance, 
and  impetuous  spirit,  and  said  to  the  bishop,  '1  entrust  to  thee 
this  youth  with  all  earnestness,  calling  Christ  and  the  Church 
to  witness.'  The  bishop  accepted  the  trust,  and  made  all  the 
requisite  promises,  and  the  Apostle  renewed  his  injunctions 
and  adjuration.  He  then  returned  to  Ephesus,  and  the  Elder 
taking  home  with  him  the  youth  who  had  been  entrusted  to 
his  care,  maintained,  cherished,  and  finally  baptised  him. 
After  this  he  abandoned  further  care  and  protection  of  him, 
considering  that  he  had  affixed  to  him  the  seal  of  the  Lord  as 
a  perfect  amulet  against  evil.  Thus  prematurely  neglected, 
the  youth  was  corrupted  by  certain  idle  companions  of  his 
own  age,  who  were  familiar  with  evil,  and  who  first  led  him 
astray  by  many  costly  banquets,  and  then  took  him  out  by 
night  with  them  to  share  in  their  felonious  proceedings,  finally 
demanding  his  co-operation  in  some  worse  crime.  First 
familiarised  with  guilt,  and  then,  from  the  force  of  his  charac- 
ter, starting  aside  from  the  straight  path  like  some  mighty 
steed  that  seizes  the  bit  between  its  teeth,  he  rushed  towards 
headlong  ruin,  and  utterly  abandoning  the  Divine  salvation, 
gathered  his  worst  comrades  around  him,  and  became  a  most 
violent,  bloodstained,  and  reckless  bandit-chief.  Not  long 
afterwards  John  was  recalled  to  the  city,  and  after  putting 
other  things  in  order  said,  'Come  now,  O  bishop,  restore  to 
me  the  deposit  which  I  and  the  Saviour  entrusted  to  thee,  with 
the  witness  of  the  Church  over  which  thou  dost  preside.'  At 
first  the  bishop  in  his  alarm  mistook  the  meaning  of  the  meta- 
phor, but  the  Apostle  said,  *I  demand  back  the  young  man 
and  the  soul  of  the  brother.'  Then  groaning  from  the  depth 
of  his  heart  and  shedding  tears,  'He  is  dead,'  said  the  bishop. 
'How  and  by  what  death?'  'He  is  dead  to  God!  For  he  has 
turned  out  wicked  and  desperate,  and,  to  sum  up  all,  a  brig- 
and; and  now,  instead  of  the  Church  he  has  seized  the  moun- 
tain, with  followers  like  himself.'  Then  the  Apostle,  rending 
his  robe  and  beating  his  head,  with  loud  wailing,  said,  'A  fine 
guardian  of  our  brother's  soul  did  I  leave!  Give  me  a  horse 
and  a  guide.'  Instantly,  as  he  was,  he  rode  away  from  the 
Church,  and  arriving  at  the  brigands'  outposts,  was  captured 
without  flight  or  resistance,  but  crying,  'For  this  I  have  come. 
Lead  me  to  your  chief.'  The  chief  awaited  him  in  his  armour, 
but  when  he  recognised  John  as  he  approached,  he  was  struck 
with  shame  and  turned  to  fly.  But  John  pursued  him  as  fast 
as  he  could,  forgetful  of  his  age,  crying  out,  'Why,  my  son, 


46o  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

dost  thou  fly  from  thine  own  father,  unarmed,  aged  as  he  is? 
Pity  me,  my  son,  fear  not;  thou  hast  still  a  hope  of  life.  I 
will  ^'we  account  to  Christ  for  thee,  should  need  be.  I  will 
willingly  abide  thy  death;  the  Lord  endured  the  death  on  our 
behalf. '  For  thy  sake  I  will  give  in  ransom  my  own  soul. 
Stay!  believe!  Christ  sentme.'  But  he  on  hearing  these  words 
first  stood  with  downcast  gaze,  then  flung  away  his  arms,  then 
trembling,  began  to  weep  bitterly,  and  embraced  the  old  man 
when  he  came  up  to  him,  pleading  with  his  groans,  and  bap- 
tising himself  afresh  with  his  tears,  only  concealing  his  right 
hand.  But  the  Apostle,  pledging  himself  to  win  remission  for 
him  from  the  Saviour  by  his  supplications,  kneeling  before 
him,  covering  with  kisses  even  his  right  hand  as  having  been 
cleansed  by  repentance,  led  him  back  to  the  Church,  and 
praying  for  him  with  abundant  prayers,  and  wrestling  with 
him  in  earnest  fastings,  and  disenchanting  him  with  various 
winning  strains,  he  did  not  depart,  as  they  say,  till  he  restored 
him  to  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  afl'ording  a  great  example  of 
true  repentance,  and  a  great  badge  of  renewed  birth,  a  trophy 
of  visible  repentance,  when  in  the  close  of  the  age  the  angels 
receive  those  who  are  truly  penitent  into  heavenly  habitations, 
radiantly  rejoicing,  hymning  their  hymns,  and  opening  the 
heavens.'" 

4.  Other  traditions  may  be  briefly  mentioned.  One  beau- 
tiful story  rests  solely  on  the  authority  of  the  monk  Cassian 
(.•v.D.  420),  and  is  far  too  late  and  unsupported  to  have  any 
authentic  value. ^  It  is  yet  in  many  respects  characteristic. 
It  tells  us  that  St.  John,  in  his  hours  of  rest  and  recreation, 
used  to  amuse  himself  by  playing  with  a  little  tame  partridge. 
On  one  occasion  a  young  hunter,  who  had  greatly  desired  to 
see  him,  could  hardly  conceal  his  surprise,  and  even  his  dis- 
api)roval,  at  finding  him  thus  employed.  He  doubted  for  a 
moment  whether  this  could  indeed  be  the  last  survivor  of  the 
Apostles.  *'VVhat  is  that  thing  which  thou  carriest  in  thy 
hand?"  asked  St.  John.  *'A  bow,"  replied  the  hunter. 
**Why  then  is  it  unstrung?"  "Because,"  said  the  youth, 
"were  I  to  keep  it  always  strung  it  would  lose  its  spring,  and 
become  useless. "    " Even  so, ' '  replied  the  aged  saint,  '  'be  not 


The  Chroincon  Alexandr.  mentions  Smyrna  as  the  city.  Rufinus,  in  adding  that  John 
tn.i(lc  ilic  vouih  ,1  bishop,  seems  to  be  mistakinq;  the  meaning  of /caTeVrrjo-e  to  'EKKkrjtria.  If, 
however,  the  story  \>c  well  attested,  it  is  strange  that  no  use  should  have  been  made  of  it'in  the 
c..utr..vcrMcs  agamst  IcrtuUian  and  the  Montanists. 

.^b^^JN*"*!!'  V*^'"'-  ""'"•  "r    '''^'■"  t«'enty-four  Collationcs  of  Cassian  are  prefixed  to  the 
works  of  John  Damascene.     Sec  Zahn,  p.  190. 


LEGENDS   OF   ST.    JOHN.  461 

offended"  at  this  my  brief  relaxation,  which  prevents  my  spirit 
from  waxing  faint." 

The  beauty  of  the  anecdote  Hes  far  less  in  the  common 
illustration  of  the  bow  which  is  never  unbent,  than  in  the  old 
man's  tenderness  for  the  creatures  which  God  had  made. 
The  Jews  were  remarkable  among  the  nations  of  antiquity  for 
their  kindness  to  dumb  animals.  Even  Moses  had  taught 
careless  boys  not  to  take  the  mother  bird  when  they  took  the 
young  from  their  nest,  and  had  meant  to  inculcate  the  lesson  of 
mercy  in  the  thrice-repeated  command:  "Thou  shalt  not  seethe 
the  kid  in  its  mother's  milk. "  It  is  a  beautiful  Rabbinic  legend 
of  the  great  legislator  that  once  he  had  followed  a  lamb  far 
into  the  wilderness,  and  when  he  found  it,  took  it  into  his 
arms,  saying,  "Little  lamb,  thou  knewest  not  what  was  good 
for  thee.  Come  unto  me,  thy  shepherd,  and  I  will  bear  thee 
to  thy  fold."  And  God  said,' "Because  he  has  been  tender  to 
the  straying  lamb,  he  shall  be  the  shepherd  of  my  people  Is- 
rael." Another  Talmudic  story  will  show  how  much  the  Jews 
thought  of  this  duty.  Rabbi — the  title  g4ven  by  way  of  pre- 
eminence to  Rabbi  Judah  Hakkodesh,  the  compiler  of  the 
Mishna — was  a  great  sufferer.  One  day  a  calf  came  bellowing 
to  him,  as  though  to  escape  slaughter,  and  laid  its  head  on  his 
lap.  But  when  Rabbi  pushed  it  away  with  the  remark,  "Go, 
for  to  this  wast  thou  created,"  they  said  in  heaven,  "Lo!  he 
is  pitiless;  let  affliction  come  upon  him."  But  another  day 
his  servant,  in  sweeping  the  room,  disturbed  some  kittens, 
and  Rabbi  said,  "Let  them  alone;  for  it  is  written,  'His  tender 
mercies  are  over  all  His  works.'  "  Then  they  said  in  heaven, 
"Let  us  have  pity  on  him,  for  he  is  pitiful."^ 

"He  prayeth  well  who  loveth  well 

Both  man,  and  bird,  and  beast. 
He  prayeth  best  who  loveth  best 

All  things,  both  great  and  small ; 
For  the  dear  God  who  loveth  us. 

He  made  and  loveth  all." 

5.  The  tradition  that  St.  John  lived  in  Ephesus  the  life  of 
a  rigid  ascetic,  eating  no  animal  food,  having  the  unshorn 
locks  of  a  Nazarite,  and  wearing  no  garments  but  linen,  has 
little  to  recommend  it.  It  rests  solely  on  the  authority  of  Epi- 
phanius,  who  wrote  three  centuries  after  St.  John  was  dead. 
No  hint  of  it  is  found  in  the  writings  of  those  who  had  con- 
versed with  friends  and  pupils  of  the  great  Apostle.  But  when 
the  possibility  of  Apostolic  labours  and  journeyings  was  over, 


Bava  Metsia,  f.  85,  a. 


462  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

he  doubtless  lived  a  life  of  peaceful  dignity,  not  indeed,  ex- 
cept in  metaphor,  as  "a  Priest,  wearing  the  golden  frontlet,'" 
but  as  a  beloved  and  venerated  old  man  whose  lightest  words 
were  treasured  up  because  he  was  the  last  of  living  men  who 
could  say,  "I  have  seen  the  Lord." 

6.  The  unsupported  assertion  of  Apollonius,  that  he  had 
raised  a  dead  man  to  life  at  Ephesus,^  may  be  passed  over 
without  further  notice;  as  also  may  be  the  assertion  that  he 
was,  in  the  Apocalyptic  sense,  "a  virgin."^  The  expression 
of  St.  Paul  in  i  Cor.  ix.  5,*  at  least  gives  some  probability  to 
tl^e  belief  that  all  the  Apostles  were,  like  St.  Peter,  married 
men. 

7.  One  more  tradition  has  met  with  almost  universal  ac- 
ceptance.* It  is  that  when  St.  John  "tarried  at  Ephesus  to 
extreme  old  age,  and  could  only  with  difficulty  be  carried  to 
church  in  the  arms  of  his  disciples,  and  was  unable  to  give 
utterance  to  many  words,  he  used  to  say  no  miOre  at  their 
several  meetings  than  this: — 'Little  childen,  love  one  another.' 
The  disciples  and  fathers  who  were  there,  wearied  with  hear- 
ing always  the  same  words,  said,  'Master,  why  dost  thou  al- 
ways say  this?'  'It  is  the  Lord's  command,'  was  his  worthy 
reply;  'and  if  only  this  be  done,  it  is  enough.'  "" 

8.  ^V^e  cannot  with  certainty  name  those  with  whom  he  was 
familiar  during  the  closing  epoch  of  his  life.  We  only  know 
that,  according  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity,  Poly- 
carp  was  his  friend  and  hearer.^  There  is  less  certainty  about 
Ignatius,  Papias,  and  Quadratus.® 

9.  Respecting  the  death  of  St.  John  we  are  left  in  the  com- 
pletest  darkness.  Two  words — dvetXc  fxa^aipa  "slew  with  the 
sword" — suffice  to  record  the  martyrdom  of  his  elder  brother;* 

'  I'olycr.  a/>.  Euseb.  iii.  31,  &?  eyet-^flTj  iepcv;  to  TreVoAoi'  7re<^ope*caJ?.  Hegesippus  affirms 
the  same  thing  of  James  {a/>.  Euseb.  ii.  23).  Epiphanius  {Hncr.  xxix.  4)  appeals  to  the  au- 
thority of  Clemens  in  favour  of  this  legend  (aAAd  ical  to  ■niToXov  cttI  t^s  (ce^aA^s  efi}»'  avToJ 
^i^^v)  (comp.  id.  Ixxviii.  §  13).  2  ApoUon.  af>.  Euseb.  v.  18  :  Sozomen,  vii.  26*. 

•  Kcv.  xiv.  4  (s^c  Life  o/Si.  Paul,  i.  80  :  Tert.  De  Monogavi.  "Joannes  .  .  Christi  spa- 
do ;  "  Ambrosiaster  on  2  Col.  xi.  2  ;  and  in  the  Pistis  Sophia,  and  Apocalypse  of  Esdras  (Fa- 
bririus,  Cod.  Apocr.  II.  585).  4  "  As  the  restof\X\<i  Apostles." 

'  I.cssing  has  touched  on  this  story  in  his  Testament  des  Johannes.,  as  Herder  has  told 
tlie  story  of  the  Ephesian  robber  in  his  Per  ,o^erettete  Junglinq^. 

•  "  Hcatus  Joannes  Evangelista  cum  Ephesi  moraretur  usque  ad  extremam  senectutem,  et 
vix  mtcr  <lis<;ii)ulorum  manus  ad  ecclesiam  deferretur,  nee  posset  in  plura  vocem  verba  con- 
tcxcrc,  nihil  aliud  jier  sinjjulas  solebat  profcrri  collectas,  nisi  hoc  'Fii.iou,  diligite,  alteru- 
'1  RIM.'  I  andcm  discipuli  et  fratrcs  qui  aderaut,  taedio  r.ffecti  quod  eadem  semper  audirent, 
dixcnint  :  '  .Magistcr,  quare  semper  hoc  loqucris  ? '  Qui  respoiidit  dignam  Joaiuie  senten- 
tuitn:   '<Juia  praeceptuin  Domini  est,  et  si  solum  fiat,  sufficit'  "  (Jer.  in  Gal.  vi.  10). 

Ircn.  u.  3,  aiul  n/>.  Euseb.  v.  20  ;  Euseb.  iii.  36  ;  Jer.  Chron.  a.d.  101  ;  de  Ftrr.  Illustr. 
17;  Suidas,  /.  T'.  ;  and  Tert.  dr  Prnescr.  Haer.  32. 

•  IlCnalm*  is  said  to  have  l)een  a  hearer  of  St.  John,  in  Jer.  Chron.  A.D.  lox.  The  ques- 
tion abr.ut  I'apias  will  Ix:  touched  up(.n  in  Excursus  XIV.,  about  John  the  Presbyter.  <^ua- 
ilratu*  w  mentioned  by  Euscbius  and  Jerome.  Prochorus  and  P.ucolus  are  mentioned  by  later 
wnicn  of  no  authority.  9  Acts  xii.  2. 


LEGENDS   OF   ST.    JOHN.  463 

not  one  word  tells  us  how  the  last,  and  in  some  respects  the 
greatest,  of  the  Apostles  passed  to  his  reward.  It  is  only  a 
very  late  and  worthless  rumour  which  says  that  he  was  killed 
by  the  Jews.  From  the  silence  of  all  the  early  Fathers  as  to 
this  supposed  martyrdom,  we  may  assume  it  for  certain  that, 
so  far  as  they  knew,  he  died  quietly  at  Ephesus  in  extreme 
old  age.  His  grave  was  shown  at  Ephesus  for  several  centu- 
ries, and  the  legend,  before  mentioned,  that  the  dust  was  seen 
to  move  with  the  breathing  of  the  great  Apostle,  as  he  lay  in 
immortal  sleep,  arose  from  the  awe  with  which  it  was  regarded.' 
Bat  the  age  which  he  attained — far  surpassing,  if  some  of  our 
accounts  are  true,  the  ordinary  three  score  years  and  ten'^ — 
only  deepened  the  impression  that  he  would  not  die  till  Christ 
returned.  He  did  not  die  till  Christ  had  returned,  in  that 
sense  of  the  "close  of  the  aeon"  to  which  His  own  words  and 
that  of  His  Apostles  often  point;  but  legend  said  that  he  had 
been  taken  alive  to  Heaven  like  Enoch  and  Elijah,^  and  that 
sometimes  he   still   wandered  and  appeared   on   earth. ■*      So 

J  See  sjtjn-a,  p.  90  ;  Polycrates,  ap.  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  31,  39;  v.  24;  Jer.  de  Vijr. 
lUuatr.  ix.  ;  Aug.  Tract.  124,  /;/  Joaiin.  "  Assumat  in  argiimentum  quod  ilhc  term  sensim 
scatere  et  quasi  ebullire  perhibetur  atque  hoc  ejus  anhelitu  fieri "  (Niceph.  H.  R.  ii.  42  ;  Zahn, 
p.  205). 

2  According  to  Isidore  Hispalensis  [De  ortti  et  oiitu,  71).  he  lived  to  the  a^e  of  eighty- 
nine.  But  if  he  lived  till  the  reign  ofTrajan  (Iren.  c.  Hacr.  ii.  225  ;  Jer.  de  Virr.  Illustr. 
i.\-.,  adz>.  Javifi.  i.  14)  he  must  have  been  nearly  ninety-eight.  The  Chronicon  Paschale  siys 
he  lived  one  hundred  years  and  seven  months,  and  pseudo-Chrj'Sostora  [de  S.  Jo/tan.)  that 
he  lived  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  ;  as  also  Suidas,  s.  v.  'loxiinTj?,  and  Dorotheas  (I^mpe, 
p.  92).  In  the  ninth  century  a  writer  named  Georgius  Hamartolos  quotes  the  authority  of 
Papias,  "  who  had  seen  him,"  for  the  statement  in  the  second  book  of  his  /{ 'ords  of  the  Lordy 
that  John  was  "put  to  death  by  the  Jews."  On  the  other  hand,  (i)  Polycrates  [a/>.  Euseb. 
iii.  31,  V.  20),  Irenaeus  [Haer.  ii.  22,  §  5),  and  Tertullian  [de  Afiiin.  50)  speak  of  his  having 
died  a  natural  death,  which  they  certainly  would  not  have  done  if  there  had  been  any  tradi- 
tion of  his  martyrdom  ;  and  (ii)  the  epithet  "martyr"  was  only  applied  to  him  in  consequence 
of  the  legends  about  the  caldion  of  oil  (Ten  Prnescr.  Haer.  36)  and  the  poison  cup  ("  .^cis 
of  John,"  Fabricius,  Cod.  Apocr.  i.  576),  as  well  as  with  reference  to  his  banishment  to  Pat- 
mos  (Origen,  in  Matt.  xvi.  6  and  AVf.  i.  9).  Keim  most  erroneously  says  {Jesu  von.  Nazara, 
III.  44)  that  Herakleon,  the  Valentinian,  quoted  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria  {Stro)n.  iv.  9,  §  73), 
asserted  that  the  only  Apostles  who  had  not  suffered  martyrdom  were  Matthew,  Thomas,  and 
Philip.  But,  in  the  first  place,  Herakleon  added  "  Levi,  and  matiy  ot/irrs,"  of  whom,  there- 
fore, John  may  have  been  one;  and,  secondly,  he  is  speaking  not  of  mart>Tdom  at  all,  but  of 
various  kinds  of  "confession,"  one  of  which  is  "  confession  by  the  voice  in  the  presence  of  au- 
thorities," and  certainly  John  had  made  such  a  "confession  "  (Actsiv.  13,  19).  Even  Schol ten 
gives  up  the  value  of  this  testimony  and  that  of  Georg.  Hamartolos  (sec  Wilibald  (irimm  \\\ 
HAyi.eni'dA's  Zeitschr.  (1874),  p.  123).  How  loosely  Hamartolos  quotes  may  be  seen  m  the 
same  passage  (which  was  first  discovered  by  Nolte.  Ti'd'.  Quartalschr.  1862,  and  is  quoted 
in  Hilgenfeld's  Einleit.  p.  399),  from  his  reference  to  Origen,  who  does  not  say  that  St.  John 
was  martyred  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  but  only  that  he  wa.s  banished  to  Patmos.  Nor  can 
any  counter-inference  be  drawn  from  a  rhetorical  passage  of  Chrysostom,  //o'/».  in  .Matt.  Ixv. 

3  Tert.  de  Aniind,  50.  Obiit  et  Johannes,  qucm  in  adventum  domini  remansurum  frustra 
fuerat  spes.  Ps.-Hippolyt.  de  Consummat.  .Mundi.  Photius  Mynobybl.  Coti.  ■2-2.().  The 
notion  that  he  revised  the  Canon  is  quite  baseless,  nor  is  it  worth  while  to  do  more  than  men- 
tion tlie  story  of  his  having  degraded  the  Presbyter  who  forged  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla 
(Jer.  de  Virr.  Illust.  ;  Tert.  de  Bnptismo).  See,  for  all  legendary  particulars  about  his 
death,  Zahn,  Acta  Joannis,  cvii.  st^g.,  200  s<pg. 

*  As  in  the  famous  legend  of  his  appearance  to  Theodosius  (Theodoret,  /f.  E.  v.  24),  to 
Gregory' Thaumaturgus  {Vit.  d.  Greg.  Nyss.\  and  to  Edward  the  Confessor  and  the  Eng- 
lish pilgrims,  which  is  represented  on  the  screen  of  the  Confessor's  Chapel  in  Westmmstcr 
Abbey  ;  and  of  his  appearance  to  James  LV.  before  the  battle  of  FloJdcn. 


464  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

prevalent  were  such  notions  as  to  his  immortality,  even  during 
his  lifetime,  that  in  the  appendix  to  his  Gospel  he  thought  it 
necessary  to  point  out  the  erroneous  report  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  from  which  they  had  been  inferred. 

He  died,  as  his  brother  had  died,  unnoticed  and  unre- 
corded, but  he  will  live  in  his  writings  till  the  end  of  time,  to 
teach  and  bless  the  world.  "His  body  is  buried  in  peace,  but 
his  name  liveth  for  evermore.  The  people  will  tell  of  his  wis- 
dom, and  the  congregation  will  show  forth  his  praise."^ 


CHAPTER   XXVn. 

GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE. 

"  Volat  avis  sine  meta, 
Quo  nee  vates,  nee  propheta 

Evolavit  altius. 
Tarn  implenda  qiiam  impleta 
Nunquam  vidit  tot  secreta 

Purus  homo  purius." — De  S.  yoanne. 

MiLTox  has  spoken  of  the  Apocalypse  as  "the  majestic  image 
of  a  high  and  stately  tragedy,  shutting  up  and  intermingling 
her  solemn  scenes  and  acts  with  a  sevenfold  chorus  of  halle- 
lujahs and  harping  symphonies.""^  In  this  aspect  of  the  book 
— though  the  notion  of  its  dramatic  form  must  be  rejected — 
we  may  perhaps  be  content  with  the  arrangement  which  places 
it  as  the  last  book  of  Holy  Writ.  But  the  whole  weight  of 
evidence  now  tends  to  prove  that  it  is  not  the  last  book  in 
chronological  order;  that  it  was  written  nearer  the  beginning 
than  the  end  of  St.  John's  period  of  apostolic  activity  amid 
the  Churches  of  Asia;^  that  the  last  accents  of  revelation  which 

>  Ecclus.  xliy.  14, 15.  2  Reasons  of  Church  Government. 

'  Modern  criticism  tends  more  and  more  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Apocalypse  is  a  genuine 
work  of  the  Ap(jstle  St.  John.  Even  Haur  and  Zeller  regard  it  as  one  of  the  most  ceitainly 
authenticated  of  the  Apostolic  writings.  The  Alogi  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  rejected 
It  only  on  internal  grounds,  and  their  judgment  is  of  no  importance,  (iaius  (circ.  200)  ap- 
pears to  attrilnite  it  to  Cerinthus.  ]  )ionysius  of  Alexandria  (a.  u.  247)  was  inclined,  on  grounds 
of  style,  to  assign  it  to  some  other  John,  but  speaks  of  it  with  reverence.  Eusebius  wavers 
aljout  it,  placing  it  among  the  spurious  books  in  one  passage,  and  among  the  acknowledged 
W.ks  in  another.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (t  386)  deliberately  excludes  it  from  the  Canon.  The 
Contvil  nf  !,.in,licca  (a. I).  381)  omits  it.  Ampliilochius,  in  his  Jniiih.  ad  Selc%<ctts,  says  that 
"  '  i'  as  spurious.    Junilius,  even  in  the  sixth  century,  says  that  among  the  mem- 

^  '  '•  Church  it  was  viewed  with  great  suspicion.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (t  429) 

."'  •  '  iicodorct  (t  457)  alludes  to  it  very  slightly.     It  is  not  found  in  the  Peshito. 

111.;  N.  I. .11  111  I  Inirch  rejected  it.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  sixth  century  by  Cosmas  Indi- 
coplcustcv  Nirephorus  (ninth  cc-nlury)  in  his  Chronosraphia  omits  it.  Even  in  the  four- 
teenth century  Nitcphoms  Callistus,  while  accepting  it,  thinks  it  necessary  to  mention  that 
v.n.c  l.rM  H  i„  1m:  ihc  work  of  "John  the  Presbyter,"  regarded  as  a  different  person  from 
J'ihn  the  Aposilc."  I'.ul,  on  the  other  hand,  these  adverse  views  are  to  some  extent  .ac- 
coiinicd  f.T  by  dislike  to  the  difficulty  and  obscurity  of  the  book  (6ia  ro  ao-a06?  airr^s  #cai 
Avffa^iicrof  Ktti  6A1Y019  atoAaM/Sai/o^tfoi'  »tal  voo\)\xtvw),  and  by  the-  dangerous  uses  to  which 
it  W4S  often  lariied  >i)8«  av/i<^«>of  dvo.\.  rois  woAAois  ra  iv  avTji  fiiOri  kptwav,  Prol.  to  MS. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.   465 

fall  upon  our  ears  are  not  those  of  a  treatise  which,  though  it 
ends  in  such  perfect  music,  contains  so  many  terrible  visions 
of  blood  and  fire,  but  are  rather  those  of  the  Gospel  which 
tells  us. that  "the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  and  of  the  Epistle 
which  first  formulated  the  most  blessed  truth  which  was  ever 
uttered  to  human  hearts — the  truth  that  "God  is  I.ove.'" 

And  if  this  conclusion  be  correct,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
how  much  we  lose — what  confusion  we  introduce  into  the 
divine  order — by  neglecting  the  indications  of  chronology. 
Chronological  sequence  is  always  of  the  utmost  importance  for 
the  right  understanding  of  what  a  writer  says.  We  are  always 
liable  to  judge  of  him  erroneously  if  we  intermingle  his  writings, 
and  put  those  messages  last  w^hich  he  delivered  first.  It  is 
impossible  to  say  how  much  the  difiiculty  in  understanding  the 
mind  of  St.  Paul  has  been  increased  for  ordinary  readers  by  the 
unfortunate  arrangement — an  arrangement  made  on  the  most 
haphazard  and  unintelligent  principles — which  obliterates  the 
lessons  which  would  naturally  spring  from  the  right  arrange- 
ment of  his  Epistles.  It  is  a  subject  of  regret  that  the  Revisers 
of  the  Authorised  Version  did  not  render  a  permanent  service 
by  placing  them  in  that  sequence  which  is  now  ascertained  with 
certainty  as  regards  the  four  several  groups  into  which  they 
fall,  and  which  is  known  with  approximate  certainty  respecting 
almost  every  one  of  the  separate  Epistles.  How  is  it  possible 
for  any  one  to  enter  into  the  real  working  of  St.  Paul's  mind 
— the  effects  produced  upon  his  thoughts  by  years  of  divine 
education — who  is  led  to  infer  that  he  wrote  the  two  Epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians  after  he  had  written  not  only  those  to 
the  Romans  and  Galatians,  but  even  after  those  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  Colossians,  and  Ephesians?  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the 
day  will  come  when  the  obstinacy  of  custom  will  no  longer 
prevent  the  correction  of  these  conventional  misplacements. 
But  even  graver  misapprehensions  result  from  the  misplace- 
ment of  the  writings  of  St'  John.  Their  present  arrange- 
ment is  due  to  suppositions,  which  lead  to  endless  difficulties. 
It  confuses  the  value  of  precious  lessons,  and  paves  the  way 

224).  Dislike  to  chiliastic  fanaticism,  as  well  as  obviouh  critical  difficulties,  also  led  to  its  dis- 
paragement in  many  quarters.  'XYlq.  J>osltive  evidence  in  its  favour  is  very  strong;.  It  was 
accepted  by  Papias,  Justin  Martyr,  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  Hcrmas,  Melito  of  Sardis,  Theo- 
philus  of  Antioch,  ApoUonius,  and  Irena;us,  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  and  the  Vetiis  Itala,  ni 
the  second  century  ;  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  in  the  third  ;  by  Victorinus  of 
Pettau,  Ephraem  Syrus,  Epiphanius,  Basil,  Hilary,  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Didymus, 
and  Ambrose,  in  the  fourth.  Besides  this,  the  internal  evidence,  in  spite  of  differences  and 
difficulties,  is  too  clear  to  be  overlooked,  and  too  subtle  to  have  been  forged. 

1  It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  mention  the  Apocryphal  writings  attributed  to  St.  John,  such 
as  the  one  on  the  Descent  from  the  Cross,  on  the  Death  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  etc.  See  Lampc, 
Prolego7ti£}ia^  p.  131  ;  Fal^ricius,  Cod.  Apocr.  X.  'l\\t\.  iii.  p.  coo. 

30 


466  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

for  grievous  errors.  Some  may  think  it  an  exaggeration  to 
say  that  this  closing  of  the  Holy  Book  with  the  Apocalypse 
has  not  been  without  grave  consequences  for  the  history  of 
Christendom;  but  certainly  it  would  have  been  better  both  for 
the  Church  and  for  the  world  if  we  had  followed  the  divine 
order,  and  if  those  books  had  been  placed  last  in  the  canon 
which  were  last  in  order  of  time.  Had  this  been  done,  our 
Bible  would  have  closed,  as  the  Book  of  God  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  c/id  close,  with  the  gentle  and  solemn  warning  of  the 
last  Apostle — "Little  children,  keep  yourselves  from  idols." 

This  then  is  the  order  which  we  here  shall  follow.  In  the 
Apocalypse  the  New  Testament  seems  to  be  still  speaking  in 
the  voice  and  in  the  tones  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  trying 
to  see  something  of  the  meaning  of  the  Apocalypse,  we  shall 
see  the  mind  of  St.  John  when  he  first  emerged  from  the 
overshadowing  influence  of  St.  James  and  the  Elders  of  Jeru- 
salem; when,  from  the  narrowing  walls  of  the  metropolis  of 
Judaism,  he  passed  forth  into  the  Christian  communities  which 
had  grown  up  in  the  heathen  world.  We  shall  see  how  he 
wrote  and  what  he  thought  while  under  the  guidance  indeed 
of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  but  before  he  had  profited  by  his  thirty 
last  years  of  continuous  education,  and  while  yet  he  was  but 
imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  language  in  which  his  greatest 
message  was  to  be  delivered.  The  Apocalypse  was  written 
before  he  had  witnessed  the  Coming  of  Christ  and  the  close 
of  the  Old  Dispensation,  in  the  mighty  catastrophe  which, 
by  the  voice  of  God  in  history,  abrogated  all  but  the  moral 
precepts  which  had  been  uttered  by  the  voice  of  God  on  Sinai. 
The  moral  conceptions  of  the  Gospel  transcend  the  symbolism 
of  visions,  and  the  kabbalism  of  numbers.  We  do  not  pass 
from  the  purest  and  most  etherial  region  of  thought  to  dim 
images  of  plague  and  war,  foreshadowed  by  fire-breathing 
horses  and  hell-born  frogs.  When  we  have  grasped  the  ab- 
stract and  absolute  forms  in  which  the  Gospel  and  the  Epis- 
tles .set  forth  to  us  the  eternal  conflict  of  life  with  death,  and 
light  with  darkness,  we  have  learnt  higher  and  deeper  lessons 
than  when  we  gaze  on  the  material  symbols  of  scarlet  dragons 
and  locust-horsemen,  and  the  warring  of  Michael  with  the 
devil  and  the  beast. 

A  few  words  from  one  of  our  latest  and  best  students  of 
the  wntmgs  of  St.  John,  though  not  written  with  this  purpose, 
may  serve  to  show  what  we  lose  by  our  customary  reversal  of 
the  proper  order. 

"In  the  Apocalypse,"  says  Canon  Westcott,  "the  thought 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  ArOCALVPSH.   467 

is  of  an  outward  coming  for  the  open  judgment  of  men;  in 
the  Gospel,  of  a  judgment  which  is  spiritual  and  self-executing. 
In  the  Apocalypse,  the  scene  of  the  consummation  is  a  reno- 
vated world;  in  the  Gospel,  the  Father's  House.  In  the  for- 
mer, the  victory  and  the  transformation  are  from  without,  by 
might,  and  the  'future'  is  painted  in  historic  imagery;  in  the 
latter,  the  victory  and  the  transformation  are  from  within,  by 
a  spiritual  influence,  and  the  'future'  is  present  and  eternal. 

The  Apocalypse  gives  a  view  of  the  action  of 

God  in  regard  to  men  in  a  life  full  of  sorrow,  and  partial  de- 
feats and  cries  for  vengeance;  the  Gospel  gives  a  view  of  the 
action  of  God  with  regard  to  Christ,  who  establishes  in  the 

heart  of  the  believers  a  presence  of  completed  joy 

In  a  word,  the  study  of  the  Synoptists,  of  the  Apocalypse,  and 
of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  in  succession,  enables  us  to  see 
under  what  human  conditions  the  full  majesty  of  Christ  was 
peif^eived  and  declared,  not  all  at  once,  but  step  by  step,  and 
by  the  help  of  the  old  prophetic  teaching.'" 

SECTION  I. 

DATE   OF   THE    APOCALYPSE. 

But  before  we  enter  on  the  difficult  task  of  attempting  to 
see  the  significance  of  the  Apocalypse,  we  must  once  more 
pause  to  cast  a  glance  over  the  condition  of  the  world  at  the 
time  when  it  was  written. 

The  chief  obstacle  to  the  acceptance  of  the  true  date  of  the 
Apocalypse,  arises  from  the  authority  of  Irenseus.  Speaking 
of  the  number  of  the  Beast,  and  repeating  those  early  conjec- 
tures which,  as  I  shall  show  elsewhere,  practically  agree  with 
what  is  now  known  to  be  the  true  solution,  he  remarks  that  he 
cannot  give  any  positive  decision  since  he  believes  that,  if  such 
a  solution  had  been  regarded  as  necessary,  it  would  have  been 
furnished  by  "him  who  saw  the  Apocalypse.  For  it  is  not  so 
long  ago  that  it  (the  Apocalypse)  was  seen,  but  almost  in  our 
generation,  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Domitian." 
Three  attempts  have  been  made  to  get  rid  of  this  evidence. 
Guericke  proposes  to  take  '' Dometianou''  as  an  adjective,  and 
to  render  the  clause  "near  the  close  of  the  Domitian  rule," 
i.e.,  the  rule  of  Domitius  Nero.''  But  the  absence  of  the  article 
on  which  he  relies  gives  no  support  to  his  view,  and  no  scholar 
will  accept  this  hypothesis,  though  he  may  admit  the  possi- 


1  Introd.,  pp.  Ixxxv-lxxxvii.  '  Guerike,  Einleit.  ins  N.  Test.  p.  285. 


468  TlIK   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

bility  of  some  confusion  between  the  names  Domitius  and 
Domitian.'  Others  again  make  the  word  io)pdOr}  mean  "/le,  i.e., 
St.  John,  was  seen,"  since  no  nominative  is  expressed.  Now 
Irenc-eus,  in  the  same  passage  and  elsewhere,  dwells  so  much 
on  the  fact  of  testimony  given  by  those  who  had  seen  John 
face  to  face,  that  we  cannot  set  aside  this  suggestion  as  im- 
possible.^ It  has  the  high  authority  of  Wetstein.  Again,  the 
Latin  translator  of  Irenaeus  renders  the  verb  not  "visa  es^," 
"the  Apocalypse  was  seen,"  but  ''visimi  est,''  "the  Beast  [ro 
drj/nov)  was  seen. "  The  language  is,  unfortunately,  ambiguous, 
and  as,  in  uncritical  times,  it  would  naturally  be  understood 
in  what  appears  to  be  the  most  obvious  sense,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  St.  Jerome  follows  the  supposed  authority  of  Iren?eus 
in  dating  the  Apocalypse  from  the  later  epoch.  Eusebius 
says  that  St.  John  w^as  banished  to  Patmos  in  the  reign  of 
Domitian,  but,  even  if  he  be  not  misunderstanding  the  mean- 
ing of  Irenaeus,  his  evidence  goes  for  little,  since  he  leant  to 
the  view  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written  by  John  the  Pres- 
byter, and  not  by  the  Apostle.  But  the  authority  of  Irenaeus 
was  not  regarded  as  decisive,  even  if  his  meaning  be  undis- 
puted. Tertullian  places  the  banishment  to  Patmos  immedi- 
ately after  the  deliverance  from  the  cauldron  of  boiling  oil, 
and  Jerome  says  that  this  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Nero.^ 
Epiphanius  says  that  St.  John  was  banished  in  the  reign  of 
Claudius,  and  the  earliest  Apocalyptic  commentators,  as  well 
as  the  Syriac  and  Theophylact,  all  place  the  writing  of  the 
Apocalypse  in  the  reign  of  Nero.  To  these  must  be  added 
the  author  of  the  "Life  of  Timotheus,"  of  which  extracts  are 
preserved  by  Photius.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  and  Origen 
only  say  that  "John  was  banished  by  the  tyrant,"  and  this  on 
Christian  lips  may  mean  Nero  much  more  naturally  than  Do- 
mitian.* Moreover,  if  we  accept  erroneous  tradition  or  infer- 
ence from  the  ambiguous  expressions  of  Irenaeus,  we  arc 
landed  in  insuperable  difficulties.  By  the  time  that  Domitian 
died,  St.  John  was,  according  to  all  testimony,  so  old  and  so 
infirm  that  even  if  there  were  no  other  obstacles  in  the  way, 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  him  as  writing  the  fiery  pages 
of  the  Apocalypse.  Irenaeus  may  have  been  misinterpreted; 
but  even  if  not,  he  might  have  made  a  "slip  of  memory,"  and 
confused    Domitian  with  Nero.      1   myself,  in   talking  to   an 

'  This  is  the  view  of  Nicrmcycr. 

'  fiafnvpovyruii,  iKtivwv  -rdv  kut'  oi/zcr  'luavmriv  ewpoKdrw./  (Iren.  ^rf  //^er.  v.  30). 

»  1  crt.  yV  I'rafscr.  36.  Jcr.  c.  Joviit.  i.  26. 

SvJi,\*.''M!i''"iU''"''"i'^^^''-  \  \^  ''""^  ^3:  An.lrcas  on  Rev.  vi.  12;  Arethas  on  Rev.  vii.  i-3 ; 
."^ynac  M.S.  No.  18  ;  iTicophybct.  Comment,  in  Joann. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSi:.    469 

eminent  statesman,  have  heard  him  make  a  chronological  mis- 
take of  some  years,  even  in  describing  events  in  which  he  to(;k 
one  of  the  most  prominent  parts.  We  cannot  accept  a  du- 
bious expression  of  the  Bishop  of  Lyons  as  adequate  to  set 
aside  an  overwhelming  weight  of  evidence,  alike  external  and 
internal,  in  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written, 
at  the  latest,* soon  after  the  death  of  Nero.' 

For  the  sole  key  to  the  Apocalypse,  as  to  every  book  which 
has  any  truth  or  greatness  in  it,  lies  in  the  heart  of  the  writer; 
and  the  heart  of  every  writer  must  be  intensely  influenced  by 
the  spirit  or  the  circumstances  of  the  times  in  which  he  writes. 
His  words  are  addressed  in  the  first  instance  to  his  living  con- 
temporaries, and  it  is  only  through  them  that  he  can  hope  to 
reach  posterity.  Now,  if  there  was  ever  any  book  which  bears 
upon  every  page  the  impress  of  reality — the  proof  that  it  is 
written  in  words  which  came  fresh  and  burning  from  the  heart, 
and  passed  fresh  and  burning  into  the  hearts  of  others — that 
book  is  the  Apocalypse.  "Without  tears,"  says  Bengel,  "it 
was  not  written;  without  tears  it  cannot  be  understood."  It 
comes  to  us  with  tenfold  force  when  we  remember  the  tumult 
of  emotions  with  which  the  small  and  persecuted  communities 
of  early  Christians  found  themselves  in  direct  antagonism  to 
the  Roman  Empire,  as  well  as  to  the  Jewish  religion.  Could 
any  powers  more  venerated  and  more  portentous  than  these 
be  ever  banded  together  to  crush  a  nascent  faith?  The  Apo- 
calypse is  not  in  the  least  a  book  of  dim  abstractions,  of  fan- 
tastic enigmas,  of  monstrous  symbols.  It  had  a  very  definite 
object,  and  a  very  intelligible  meaning  for  all  who  had  been 
trained  in  familiarity  with  the  strange  form  of  literature  to 
v/hich  it  belongs.  The  single  phrase  of  Tertullian — "Sub 
Nerone  damnatio  invaluit" — goes  far  towards  giving  us  a  clue 
to  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle.  John  writes  as  a  Christian 
prophet  would  be  likely  to  write  who  may  have  seen  a  Peter 
crucified  and  a  Paul  beheaded.^  The  book  is  a  rallying  cry 
to  the  Christian  warriors  who  might  seem  liable  to  be  trampled 
to  the  earth  in  irremediable  defeat. 

The  book  has  been  persistently  misunderstood.  Herder 
might  well  ask, '  'Was  there  a  key  sent  with  the  book,  and  has 


1  This  result  is  now  accepted,  not  only  by  Liicke,  Schwcgler,  Haur,  Ziillig,  l^c  Wette, 
Renan,  Krenkel,  15leek,  Reuss,  Rdville,  Volkmar,  Hiinsen.  Diisterdicck,  etc.,  but  also  by  such 
writers  as  Stier,  Neander,  Ciuerlcke,  Aubcrlen,  F.  D.  Maurice,  Moses  Stuart,  Niermeyer, 
Desprez,  S.  Davidson,  the  author  of  The  Farousia,  Aub^,  etc. 

2  The  remarkable  expression,  "And  I  saw  the  souls  of  them  that  had  been  beheaded 
(nenekeKiatiivuiv)  lor  the  testimony  of  Jesus"  (Rev.  xx.  4),  may  (as  Kwald  thinks,  Gesch.  vi. 
618)  point  especially  to  the  death  of  St.  Paul.  "  Heheading"  was  the  form  of  death  adopted 
for  Roman  citizens. 


4/0  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

this  been  l^st?  Was  it  thrown  into  the  wSea  of  Patmos,  or  into 
the  Macander?"  Intolerance,  ignorance,  sectarian  fierceness, 
the  san<juinary  factiousness  of  an  irreHgious  rehgionism,  the 
eternal  Pharisaism  of  the  human  heart,  have  made  of  it  their 
favourite  camping-ground.  Others  have  been  driven  into  a 
natural  but  irreverent  scorn  of  it,  because  they  turn  with  dis- 
gust from  the  degradation  to  which  it  has  been  subjected  by 
fanatical  bigotry.  But  when  rightly  used,  it  is  full  of  blessed 
instruction,  and  it  would  never  have  been  discredited  as  it 
has  been,  if  its  own  repeated  assertions  and  indications  had 
not  been  ignored.  Instead  of  seeking  out  the  meanings  which 
must  have  made  it  precious  to  its  original  readers,  as,  in  great 
part  at  least,  to  all  loving  and  humble  Christian  hearts,  men 
have  wandered  into  the  quagmire  of  private  interpretations 
after  the  ignis  fatuus  of  religious  hatred.  God  has  revealed 
himself  in  the  history  of  the  Church  and  the  World,  but  this 
manifestation  of  God  in  history  has  been  hopelessly  confused 
by  an  attempt  to  make  it  correspond  with  symbols  with  which 
it  has  no  connexion.  The  surest  and  deadliest  injury  to  which 
the  Apocalypse  can  be  subjected  is  to  treat  it  as  a  sort  of  an- 
ticipated Gibbon,  or  a  controversial  compendium  of  ecclesias- 
tical disputes.  Its  symbols  have  become  plastic  in  the  hot 
hands  of  paj-ty  factiousness,  but  under  such  manipulations  they 
have  been  rendered  unintelligible  to  the  eyes  of  truth  and 
love. 

Happily  these  "theological  romances'"  of  Apocalyptic 
commentary  have  had  their  day.  Like  a  thousand  other  phan- 
toms of  exegesis,  they  are  vanishing  into  the  limbo  of  the  ob- 
solete. They  may  linger  on  for  a  time,  like  spectres  not  yet 
exorcised,  but  they  are  doomed  to  disappear  for  ever  in  the 
broadening  light  of  a  sounder  knowledge. 

The  Apocalypse  had  its  immediate  origin  in  two  events 
which  happened  at  this  period  of  the  life  of  St.  John.  One 
was  the  Neronian  persecution.  The  other  was  the  outbreak  of 
the  Jewish  war.  It  was  not  until  these  events  were  over,  it 
was  not  until  their  divine  teaching  had  done  its  work,  that  a 
third  and  more  gradual  event— the  development  of  Gnostic 
teaching  in  the  form  of  new  Christologies — called  forth  in  its 
turn  the  (lospel  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  John  as  the  final  utter- 
ance of  Christian  revelation. 

Unless  we  study  these  events  there  is  no  chance  of  our 
understanding  the  writings  of  St.  John.     Those  writings,  like 


Moses  Stuart. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.    47 1 

all  the  Books  of  Scripture,  are  indeed  full  of  sacred  lessons 
for  every  humble  heart.  The  comprehension  of  such  lessons 
— which,  after  all,  are  the  best  and  deepest — requires  nothing 
but  the  spiritual  enlightenment  of  a  pure  and  truthful  soul. 
But  the  historical  and  critical  knowledge  of  a  book  demands 
other  qualifications;  and  it  has  been  a  fatal  mistake  of  Chris- 
tians to  claim  infallibility  for  their  subjective  convictions,  not 
only  in  matters  of  religious  experience,  but  in  questions  of  his- 
tory and  criticism,  respecting  which  they  may  be  quite  incom- 
petent to  pronounce  an  opinion  of  any  value. 

We  have  already  seen  what  manner  of  man  Nero  was.  The 
spectacle  of  such  a  man  seated  on  the  Imperial  throne  of  the 
heathen  world  accounts  for  the  abhorrence  which  he  inspired 
as  a  living  impersonation  of  the  "world-rulers  of  this  dark- 
ness."' We  have  also  seen  the  origin  and  history  of  the 
Neronian  persecution,  and  the  circumstances  which  connected 
it  with  the  burning  of  Rome.  For  the  history  of  these  events 
we  must  refer  back  to  the  first  volume.  But  we  must  remind 
the  reader  that  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  can  only  be  rightly 
read  by  the  lurid  light  which  falls  upon  it  from  the  Burning 
City — under  the  horrible  illumination  flung  by  the  bale-fires 
of  martyrdom  upon  the  palace  and  gardens  of  the  Beast  from 
the  abyss. 

A  great  French  artist  has  painted  a  picture  of  Nero  walking 
with  his  lictors  through  the  blackened  streets  of  Rome  after 
the  conflagration.  He  represents  him  as  he  was  in  mature 
age,  in  the  uncinctured  robe  with  which,  to  the  indignation  of 
the  noble  Romans,  he  used  to  appear  in  public.  He  is  obese 
with  self-indulgence.  Upon  his  cparsened  features  rests  that 
dark  cloud,  which  they  must  have  often  worn  when  his  con- 
science was  most  tormented  by  the  furies  of  his  murdered 
mother  and  his  murdered  wives.  Shrinking  back  among  the 
ruins  are  two  poor  Christian  slaves,  who  watch  him  with  looks 
in  which  disgust  and  detestation  struggle  with  fear.  The  pic- 
ture puts  into  visible  form  the  feelings  of  horror  with  which 
the  brethren  must  have  regarded  one  whom  they  came  to  con- 
sider as  the  incarnate  instrument  of  Satanic  antagonism -against 
God  and  against  His  Christ, — as  the  deadliest  and  most  irre- 
sistible enemy  of  all  that  is  called  holy  or  that  is  worshipped. 

Did  St.  John  ever  see  that  frightful  spectacle  of  a  monster 
in  human  flesh?     Was  he  a  witness  of  the  scenes  which  made 

*  Eph.  vi.  12. 


472  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  circus  and  the  gardens  of  Nero  reek  with  the  fumes  of 
martyrdom?  We  have  already  observed  that  tradition  points 
in  that  direction.  In  the  silence  which  falls  over  many  years 
of  his  biography,  it  is  possible  that  he  may  have  been  com- 
pelled by  the  Christians  to  retire  from  the  menace  of  the  storm 
before  it  actually  burst  over  their  devoted  heads.  St.  Paul, 
as  we  believe,  was  providentially  set  free  from  his  Roman  im- 
l)risonment  just  in  time  to  be  preserved  from  the  first  outburst 
of  the  Neronian  persecution,^  Had  it  not  been  for  this,  who 
can  tell  whether  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  and  St.  Peter  might 
not  have  been  clothed  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts  to  be  torn  to 
pieces  by  the  bloodhounds  of  the  amphitheatre?  or  have  stood, 
each  in  his  pitchy  tunic,  to  form  one  of  those  ghastly  human 
torches  which  flared  upon  the  dark  masses  of  the  abominable 
crowd?  But  even  if  St.  John  never  saw  Rome  at  this  period, 
many  a  terrified  fugitive  of  the  "vast  multitude"  which  Tacitus 
mentions  must  have  brought  him  tidings  about  those  blood- 
stained orgies  in  which  the  Devil,  the  Beast,  and  the  False 
Prophet — "that  great  Anti-Trinity  of  Hell" — were  wallowing 
through  the  mystic  Babylon  in  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  the 
Lord. 

Supposing  that  St.  John  had  written  an  apocalyptic  book 
at  this  time,  is  it  not  a  priori  certain  that  these  events,  and 
the  appalling  figure  of  the  Antichrist  who  then  filled  the  world's 
eye,  would  have  been  prominent  in  such  a  book?  Do  not 
contemporary  events  and  contemporary  persecutions  figure  in 
every  one  of  the  numerous  Apocalypses  in  which  Jews  and 
Christians  at  this  epoch  expressed  their  hopes  and  fears?  Is 
it  not  a  matter  of  certainty  to  every  reasonable  man,  that  the 
Apocalypse  must  be  interpreted  by  laws  similar  to  those  which 
regulate  every  other  specimen  of  that  Semitic  form  of  litera- 
ture to  which  it  avowedly  belongs?  Does  not  the  fact  that 
the  anticipated  Antichrist  of  Daniel  is  the  persecutor  Antio- 
chus  Epiphanes,  make  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
the  ^incarnate  Antichrist  of  St.  John  is  the  persecutor  Nero? 

The  Neronian  persecution,  then,  was  one  of  the  two  events 
which  awoke  in  Christian  hearts  those  thundering  echoes  of 
which  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  is  the  prolonged  and  per- 
petuated reverberation.  The  other  event  was  the  outbreak  of 
the  Jewish  war  and  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  If  we  succeed 
in  Axing  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  we  shall  be  able  to  know 
what  was  the  exact  condition  of  the  Empire  and  of  the  Holy 


Sec  riiy  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  604-607. 


•GENERAL    FEATURES   OF   THE   APOCALYPSE.        473 

Land,  of  Judaism,  Heathendom,  and  Christianity — of  the 
world  and  of  the  Church  of  Christ — when  St.  John  saw  and 
wrote. 

But  while  the  date  may  be  fixed  with  much  probability,  it 
cannot  be  fixed  with  certainty.  All  that  can  be  asserted  is 
that  the  book  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  the  burning  of  the  Temple.  This  is  clear  from  the 
beginning  of  the  eleventh  chapter.  The  Temple  is  there 
spoken  of  as  still  standing,  in  language  which  closely  resem- 
bles, and  indeed  directly  refers  to,  the  language  of  our  Lord 
in  his  great  Eschatological  discourse.  Such  language,  and 
the  whole  sequel  of  it,  would  have  been  unreal  and  mislead- 
ing, if,  at  the  time  when  it  was  penned,  nothing  remained  of 
the  Temple  and  city  of  Jerusalem  but  heaps  of  bloodstained 
stones.  But  though  Jerusalem  was  not  yet  taken,  there  are 
signs  that  the  armies  had  already  gathered  for  her  anticipated 
destruction,  and  that  the  whole  length  of  the  land  had  been 
deluged  and  drenched  with  the  blood  of  its  sons.  We  cannot 
tell  the  exact  year  in  which  the  Christians — warned,  as  Euse- 
bius  says,  "by  a  certain  oracle  given  to  their  leaders  by  reve- 
lation;'" or,  as  Epiphanius  tells  us,  "by  an  angel"" — left  the 
doomed  and  murderous  city  and  took  refuge  across  the  Jor- 
dan, in  the  Peraean  town  o^  Bella. ^  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  their  flight  took  place  before  the  actual  blockade  of  Jeru- 
salem by  Titus,  and  probably  in  a.d.  68.  It  seems  to  be  al- 
luded to  in  Rev.  xii.  14,  Now  the  first  threatening  com- 
motions in  Judsea  began  in  a.d.  64,  shortly  after  the  fire  of 
Rome.  The  actual  revolt  burst  forth  at  Cossarea  in  a.d.  65. 
Vespasian  was  despatched  to  Judaea  by  Nero  during  his  visit 
to  Greece  in  a.d.  66.  He  arrived  in  Palestine  early  in  a.d. 
67.  The  years  67  and  6S  were  spent  in  suppressing  the  brave 
resistance  of  Galilee  and  Peraea.  Nero  died  in  June,  68. 
Political  uncertainties  caused  a  suspension  of  the  Roman 
measures  during  the  year  69,  but  when  Vespasian  felt  him- 


1  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  5  (xara  Tiva.  xpijcTjubv  k.t.A.).  Probably  the  leading  Presbyters  of  tlie 
Church  pointed  out  that  the  signs  of  the  times  indicated  by  our  Lord,  as  He  sat  two  days  be- 
fore His  death  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  (Matt.  xxiv.  15,  seq.\  now  clearly  required  obedience 
to  His  warning. 

2  Epiphan.  De  Mensuris,  15.  In  Haer.  xxix.  7,  he  refers  directly  to  the  command  of 
Christ.  Jerusalem  might  be  said  to  be  "circled  with  armies"  (Luke  xxi.  20),  long  before  its 
actual  circumvallation  by  Titus. 

'^  Which  might  well  be  described  as  in  "the  mountains."  Pella  is  in  a  lofty  position,  and 
i^  on  one  side  surrounded  by  precipices.  It  was  the  nearest  city  to  Jerusalem  which  was  at 
once  safe  and  neutral.  Though  a  free  city,  it  had  placed  itself  more  or  less  under  the  protec- 
tion of  Agrippa  II.,  and  by  so  doing  had  severed  its  fortunes  from  those  of  the  Jews.  By 
their  flight  to  this  town,  the  Jewish  Christians  cast  in  their  lot  with  the  opponents  of  Jewish 
fanaticism.  It  was  one  of  the  steps  in  that  Divine  education  which  showed  them  that  die  days 
of  Mosaism  and  of  the  synagogue  were  past. 


474  Tin:    KARLV   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

self  secure  of  the  throne,  in  a.d.  70,  he  sent  Titus  to  besiege 
Jerusalem.  The  siege  began  early  in  March,  70,  and  was 
brought  to  its  terrible  conclusion  in  August  of  the  same  year. 
lUit  there  are  two  passages,  Rev.  xiii.  3,  and  xvii.  10,  11, 
wliich  might  seem  to  give  us  the  very  year  in  which  the  book 
was  written.  The  former  tells  us  about  the  Wild  Beast,  and 
how  "one  of  his  heads  was  smitten  to  death  and  his  death- 
stroke  was  healed;"  the  other,  explaining  the  previous  sym- 
bols, tells  us  that  the  seven  heads  of  the  Beast  "are  sroe?i 
kiti^s;  the  five  are  fallen;  the  one  is;  the  other  is  not  yet  come. " 
Now  we  siiall  see  hereafter,  with  perfect  certainty,  that  the 
Wild  Beast,  and  the  wounded  head  of  the  Wild  Beast,  are  in- 
terchangeable symbols  for  Nero.  The  five  "kings"  then  can 
be  no  other  than  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Gaius,  Claudius,  and 
Nero.  The  reckoning  of  the  "kings"'  from  Augustus  is  the 
natural  reckoning,  and  is  the  one  adopted  by  Tacitus.  If 
Suetonius  begins  his  Twelve  Caesars  with  the  life  of  Julius,  the 
greatest  of  them  all,  the  reason  is  that  he  wishes  to  give  an 
account  of  the  C^esarean  family,  and  of  the  hero  eponymus  who 
raised  them  to  the  summit  of  earthly  power. ^  So  far  then  it 
might  be  regarded  as  certain  that  Galba  is  the  sixth  emperor, 
and  therefore  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written  between  June, 
68,  when  Nero  committed  suicide,  and  January,  69,  when 
Galba  was  murdered.  And  since  the  news  of  Galba's  success- 
ful rebellion  could  not  have  been  known  without  a  little  delay, 
we  might  fix  the  date  of  the  Vision  in  the  summer  or  autumn 

of  A.D.  68. 

This  is,  indeed,  the  all  but  certain  date  of  the  book.  We 
have  already  seen  reason  to  set  aside  the  notion  of  its  having 
been  written  in  the  reign  of  Domitian,  as  due  partly  to  the 
mistake  of  Irenseus,^  and  partly  to  idle  repetition  and  idle  in- 
ference. It  is  not,  however,  impossible  that  Vespasian  and  not 
Galba  may  have  been  regarded  by  the  Apostle,  no  less  than 
by  others,  as  having  been  in  reality  the  sixth  emperor.  Galba, 
Otho,  and  Vitellius  passed  like  phantoms  across  the  imperial 
Mage.  The  Sibyllist  dismisses  them  in  the  single  line — 
**.\fter  him  three  kings  shall  be  destroyed  by  one  another."* 
'Jhey  neither  belonged  to  the  old  imperial  family,  nor  did  they 

..   ','!^'PS*''  was  .1  common  title  for  the  Roman  Emperors  in  the  Eastern  provinces  (see 
r.wnld,  (trtcH.  VI.  604,  si-t/i/.). 

a  .. /w^^^,,^..,^"  ,^,^,  ^  title  which  JiiUusCJEsar  bore,  in  common  with  Cicero  and  other 
I''  •;vcr  was  "  Prmccps."    The  last  private  Imperator  was  Junius  Blaesus, 

of  Andreas.  Hp.  of  the  Cappadocian  Caesarea,  in  the  fifth  century, 
ru:ni;v  S..V  ,  n,  .,..,i,.uHctioiiof  Ircna:us.  that  it  was  supposed  to  have  been  written  before 
*•''   70  4  Orac.  Sil>.  V.  35. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.   47^ 

found  a  new  one.  Between  them  they  barely  covered  the 
space  of  a  year  and  a  half.  It  is  true  that  they  are  spoken  of 
as  "Csesars"  both  by  Tacitus  and  Suetonius,  though  Vitellius 
refused  the  name.  But  when  Vespasian  succeeded  the  mur- 
dered Vitellius,  at  the  end  of  a.d.  69,  it  was  believed  that  the 
Flavian  dynasty  would  be  secure  and  lasting,  and  the  fashion 
arose  of  regarding  the  reigns  of  Galba,  Otho,  and  Vitellius  as 
^\\\^x^'' rebellion  of  three  military  ehiefs.'''^  If  this  were  the 
view  of  the  seer,  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse  would  be  brought 
down  to  A.D.  70.  The  earlier  date  accords  better  with  his 
own  indications. 

The  tension  of  feeling  caused  by  the  tremendous  conflict 
of  the  Antichrist  against  the  Saints  must  have  been  still  fur- 
ther strained  by  the  imminent  destruction  which  seemed  to 
threaten  the  existence  of  the  Jewish  race.  To  minds  already 
glowing  with  expectations  of  the  Coming  of  Christ,  and  the 
close  of  the  ages,  the  signs  of  the  times  must  have  worn  a 
portentous  aspect.  The  sunset  sky  of  the  ancient  dispensa- 
tion was  red  and  lowering  with  the  prophecy  of  storm.  The 
"woes  of  the  Messiah" — the  travail  throes  of  the  Future  Age 
— the  pangs  which  were  to  accompany  the  new  birth  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom — were  already  shaking  the  world. '^  There 
were  wars  and  rumours  of  wars.  There  were  famines  and 
earthquakes.  The  Church  had  barely  passed  through  the 
anguish  of  the  great  tribulation.  Christians  had  realised  what 
a  tremendous  thing  it  was  to  be  "hated  of  all  men,"  and  to 
be  treated  as  the  offscourings  of  the  world.  Hundreds  of 
martyrs  had  been  baptised  in  blood.  The  name  of  "Chris- 
tian" was  regarded  as  the  synonym  of  malefactor;  and  all  the 
world  hated  Christians,  on  the  false  charge  that  Christians 
hated  all  the  world.  Many  were  faltering  in  the  faith;  many 
had  proved  false  to  it.  Even  within  its  sacred  fold  many  re- 
garded each  other  with  suspicion  and  hatred.  There  were 
false  Christs  and  false  Prophets.  The  powers  of  heaven  were 
being  shaken.  Suns  and  moons  and  stars — from  Roman  Em- 
perors down  to  Jewish  Priests — were  one  after  another  waxing 
dim,  and  shooting  from  their  spheres.  Clearly  the  day  must 
be  at  hand  of  which  the  Lord  had  said  that  it  would  come  ere 
that  geiieration  passed  away ^  and  that  all  the  things  of  which 

1  The  language  of  Suetonius  is  very  remarkable,  and  certainly  lends  some  sanction  to  the 
views  of  those  who  regard  Vespasian  as  the  sixth  Emperor.  He  says,  "  Rebellione  triunt 
/>riiici/>u»i  et  csede  incertutn  diu  et  quasi  vaguiti  Imferium  susccpit  firmavitque  tandem 
gens  Flavia"  (^V^/.  i). 

2  This  is  the  term  used  not  only  by  the  Rabbis,  but  also  by  the  Evangelists,  apx*)  wfitVajv 
(Matt.  xxiv.  8  ;  Mark  xii^i.  8).  It  is  a  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  Chebeli  hamineshiach.  (See 
Hos.  xiii.  14  ;  Isa.  xxxvii.  3  ;  Mic.  iv.  9  ;  v.  2,  etc.) 


476  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

He  had  spoken  would  be  fulfilled.  Men  were  not  expecting 
it.  They  were  eating  and  drinking,  as  in  the  days  of  Noah, 
marrying  and  giving  in  marriage,  drinking  with  the  drunken, 
and  beating  their  fellow  servants  in  all  the  security  of  greed, 
in  all  the  insolence  of  oppression.  But,  none  the  less  were 
the  powers  of  vengeance  nursing  the  impatient  earthquake, 
and  a  belief  in  the  eternal  laws  of  morality  was  alone  sufficient 
to  make  every  Christian  feel  that  the  fiat  had  gone  forth — 

"  Romp:  shall  perish  !  write  that  word 
III  the  blood  that  she  hath  spilt : 
Perish  hopeless  and  abhorred, 
Deep  in  ruin  as  in  guilt." 

The  fields  were  white  for  the  harvest,  the  grapes  w^ere  purple 
for  the  vintage  of  the  world.  The  carcases  of  a  corrupt 
Judaism  and  a  yet  corrupter  heathendom  seemed  already  to 
be  falling  in  the  wilderness;  and  on  the  distant  horizon  were 
visible  the  dark  specks  which  the  seer  knew  to  be  the  gather- 
ing vultures  of  retribution,  which  should  soon  fill  the  air 
with  "the  rushing  of  their  congregated  wings." 


SECTION  II. 

THE    REVOLT   OF  JUD^A. 

"  Conquest,  thy  fiery  wing  their  race  pursued, 
Thy  thirsty  poniard  blushed  with  infant  blood." 

— Hebeb. 

On  the  whole  the  Jews  had  borne  with  reasonable  patience, 
for  nearly  a  hundred  years,  the  odious  yoke  of  the  Herods  and 
the  Romans.  The  volcano  of  their  fanaticism  was,  indeed, 
only  slumbering;  and  every  now  and  then  such  events  as  the 
rebellion  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  or  the  bold  teaching  of  the 
Pharisee  Matthias  Ben  Margaloth,  or  some  turbulent  move- 
ment of  the  Zealots,  or  some  secret  assassination  by  the  Sic- 
arii,  proved  to  the  Procurators  that  it  was  not  extinct.  The 
affair  of  the  Standards,  and  of  the  Gilt  Votive  Shields,  and  of 
tlfe  Corban  Money,  under  the  rule  of  Pilate — the  fierce  per- 
sistency with  which  the  Jews  braved  death  by  the  sword  or  by 
famine,  rather  than  admit  the  desecration  of  their  Temple  by 
the  Colossus  of  Caligula — showed  the  Romans  that  they  were 
walking  over  hot  lava  and  recent  ashes.  The  rise  of  false 
Messiahs  under  Fadus,  the  seditious  movements  in  Samaria 
under  Cumanus,  the  spread  of  brigandage  under  Felix,  the 
establishment  of  a  sort  of  7'c/unircnc/it,  which  carried  out  by 
murder  its  secret  decrees,  the  quarrels  between  Agrippa  and' 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.   477 

the  Jews  under  Festus  about  the  wall  of  his  palace,  the  ava- 
rice of  Albinus  (a.d.  63),  and  the  manner  in  which  he  allowed 
the  disgraceful  factions  of  rivals  in  the  High  Priesthood  to 
assail  each  other  unchecked,  all  tended  to  precipitate  the  end. 
But  though  the  Jews  and  the  Romans  felt  for  each  other  a 
profound  hatred,  there  was  no  overt  rebellion  till  the  days  of 
(xessius  Florus,  who  was  appointed  Procurator  in  a.d.  65. 
Under  the  best  of  circumstances  the  administrative  customs 
of  the  Romans  were  odious  to  the  Jews,  and  although  the 
Romans  were  anxious  to  extend  to  them  the  utmost  limits  of 
a  contemptuous  tolerance,  yet  they  looked  upon  the  conduct 
of  the  Jews  as  so  unreasonable,  so  fanatical,  so  unworthy  of 
ordinary  human  beings,  that  they  were  in  a  state  of  perpetual 
exasperation.  The  Jews,  in  return,  regarded  the  Romans  as 
the  impersonation  of  brutal  violence,  infamous  atheism,  and 
impure  greed.  In  the  Talmud,  and  in  the  Books  of  Esdras 
and  Enoch,  we  see  how  they  loathed  their  political  rulers. 
The  arrogance  of  Jewish  exclusiveness  constantly  betrayed 
itself  in  language  which  showed  that  they  regarded  Gentiles 
as  worthless,^  and  even  Proselytes  as  little  better  than  a  blotch 
on  the  health  of  Israel.'  On  the  other  hand,  Tacitus  shows 
us  how  a  grave  Gentile  historian  could  describe  the  Jews  as  no 
people  at  all,  but  the  mere  scum  and  offscouring  of  peoples, 
the  descendants  of  a  horde  of  leprous  slaves,  devoted  to  ex- 
ecrable superstitions,  degraded  by  /iss-worship,  and  animated 
by  phrenetic  hatred  of  all  nations  except  themselves.  The 
mutual  aversion  of  Semites  and  Aryans  thus  finds  ample  illus- 
tration in  the  literature  of  both. 

Between  such  elements  there  could  be  no  deep  or  lasting 
peace,  least  of  all  when  the  Jews  were  so  seething  with  Mes- 
sianic expectations  that  even  the  Gentiles  had  come  to  believe 
that  some  one  from  the  East  was  to  be  Master  of  the  World. 
The  Romans  afterwards  explained  this  prophecy  as  applicable 
to  Vespasian;  but  Suetonius  tells  us  that  the  Jewish  revolt 
was  due  to  their  understanding  it  in  a  Messianic  sense.'  The 
air,  too,  was  full  of  prodigies.  A  great  writer  has  said  that 
the  most  terrible  convulsions  of  nature  have  often  synchron- 


1  Bava  Kama,  f.  113,  b  ;  Sanhedrin,  f.  59,  a;  Sof>heriin,  15  ;  Fosh  Hashanah^^  23, 
a.  ■  These  and  other  similar  passages  may  be  seen  translated  in  Dr.  McCaul's  Old  Paths, 
Hershon's  Treasures  of  the  'fabiiud^  etc.  , 

■■^  "The  following  three  aie  attached  to  each  other— proselytes,  slaves,  and  ravens     (/^<r- 
sachim,  f.  113,  b).     Rabbi  Chelbo  said,  "Proselytes  are  as  injiiripus  to  Israel  as  the  scab 
(see  my  Life  of  St.  Paul,  i.  666).  .   .  •     r    • 

3  Suet.  Vesp.  4.  "  Percrebuerat  Oriente  toto  vctus  et  constans  opmio  esse  in  fatis  ut  eo 
iem/>ore  ]\\dc?t.  profecti  rerum  potirentur.  Jiidaei  ad  se  trahentes  rebellarunt"  (Jos.  B.  J. 
vi.  5.  §4  ;   iac.  Hist,  V.  13). 


47S  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ised  with  the  political  catastrophes.'  However  this  maybe, 
it  is  certain  that  events  are  often  influenced  by  the  effect  pro- 
duced on  the  imagination  by  strange  portents  or  uncommon 
appearances.  The  tension  of  men's  m'inds  among  the  heathen 
made  them  notice  or  imagine  all  sorts  of  prodigious  births, 
storms,  inundations,  comets,  showers  of  blood,  earthquakes, 
strange  effects  of  lightning,  abnormal  growths  of  trees,  streams 
of  meteorites."  In  Jerusalem  men  told  how,  at  the  Passover 
of  A.D.  65,  a  mysterious  light  had  gleamed  for  three  hours  at 
midnight  in  the  Holiest  Place;  how  the  enormous  gates  of  brass, 
which  it  required  the  exertions  of  twenty  men  to  move,  had 
opened  of  themselves,  and  could  not  be  closed;  how,  at  Pente- 
cost, the  priests  had  heard  sounds  as  of  departing  deities,  who 
said  to  each  other,  "Let  us  depart  hence;"^  how 

"  Fierce  fiery  warriors  fought  upon  the  clouds, 
In  rank  and  sqiiadrgn,  and  right  form  of  war. 
Which  drizzled  blood." 

"Everyone,"  says  Renan,  "dreamed  of  presages;  the  apo- 
calyptic colour  of  the  Jewish  imagination  tinged  every  thing 
with  an  aureole  of  blood." 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  wicked  object  of  Gessius  Florus 
— the  last  of  the  Procurators  of  Judaea — to  bring  these  ele- 
ments of  rebellion  to  a  head.*  Though  he  owed  his  appoint- 
ment to  the  friendship  of  his  wife,  Cleopatra,  with  Poppaea, 
who,  if  not  a  proselyte,  was  very  favourable  to  the  Jews,  it 
seems  as  if  he  took  every  step  with  the  intention  of  escaping 
from  legal  enquiries  into  his  own  administration,  by  mad- 
dening the  Jews  into  acts  which  the  Romans  would  regard  as 
irreparably  criminal.  The  legions  of  Palestine  were  not  purely 
Roman.  They  were  recruited  from  the  dregs  of  the  provin- 
cials, especially  from  the  Syrians  of  Caesarea  and  the  Samari- 
tans of  Sebaste,  two  places  in  which  the  Jews  were  regarded 
with  special  antipathy.'  At  Caesarea  the  population  was  half 
Jewish,  half  Greek  and  Syrian.  Nothing  but  the  Roman  au- 
thority prevented  these  hostile  nationalities  from  flying  at  each 
other's  throats.  In  a.d.  66  Nero  settled  their  rivalries  by 
giving  the  precedence  to  the  Greeks  and  Syrians.  A  Greek 
immediately  built  a  wall  so  close  to  the  Jewish  synagogue  that 
the  Jews  had  hardly  room  to  pass.    The  young  Jews  assaulted 

!  Nicbuhr  2  Suet.  /  'esp.  5. 

»  ^os.  B.  7.  11.  22.  S  I  :  «/\.  5.  8  21  ;  Tac.  H.  v.  13,  and  in  the  Talmud. 
^..       '.V"""^^" '^'"*="P^"'=nt>^Jud.icis  usque  ad  Gess.  Florum  ....  sub  eo  bellumortum  " 
(lac.  //.  V.  10). 

/n  *  "  !'^!*"',"/*'wl'  K^o^'c'l  "P"'  ('^cph.  ii.  4).  '"J-his  is  Cxsarea,  the  daughter  of  Edora 
(Rome)"  (Megillah,  f.  6,  ,1). 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALVPSE.    479 

the  workmen,  and  John,  a  Jewish  pubHcan,  gave  Florus  the 
immense  bribe  of  eight  talents  to  prohibit  the  continuance  of 
the  building.  Florus  accepted  the  money,  and,  without  taking 
any  step,  went  to  Sebaste.  The  next  day,  being  the  Sabbath, 
some  worthless  Greek,  in  order  to  insult  the  Jews,  turned  up 
an  earthen  pot  near  the  door  of  the  synagogue,  and  began  to 
sacrifice  birds  upon  the  bottom  of  it.  This  was  intended  to 
be  a  parody  on  Lev.  xiv.  4,  5,  and  therefore  an  allusion  to  the 
old  calumny  that  the  Jews  were  a  nation  of  lepers.'  The  Jews 
flew  to  arms,  and  since  the  Roman  Master  of  the  Horse  could 
not  quell  the  tumult,  they  carried  off  their  sacred  books  to 
Narbata.  When  John  and  twelve  of  the  leading  Jews  went 
to  Sebaste  to  complain  to  Florus,  he  threw  them  into  prison. 
As  though  this  was  not  enough,  he  sent  to  Jerusalem,  and  de- 
manded seventeen  talents  from  the  Corban  treasury  for  the 
use  of  the  Emperor.  This  was  more  than  the  Jews  could 
tolerate.  They  not  only  refused  the  demand,  but  heaped  re- 
proaches upon  the  Procurator.  He  set  out  for  Jerusalm,  with 
a  body  of  horse  and  foot,  to  enforce  his  requisition;  and  when 
the  people  came  forth  to  pay  him  the  customary  compliment 
of  receiving  him  with  a  shout  of  joy,  he  ordered  his  cavalry 
to  drive  them  back  into  the  city.  Next  day,  with  outrageous 
insolence,  he  refused  every  apology  which  was  offered  him, 
demanded  the  surrender  of  those  who  had  reproached  him, 
and  scourged  and  crucified  some  of  the  Jewish  publicans, 
though  they  held  the  rank  of  Roman  knights.  In  these  dis- 
turbances 3,600  Jews  were  slain.  Even  then  the  chief  citi- 
zens tried  to  calm  the  people,  and  to  hush  the  voice  of  their 
natural  lamentations.  But  Florus  now  bade  them  all  go  out 
and  welcome  with  a  shout  of  joy  two  cohorts  which  were  ad- 
vancing from  C?esarea.  To  these  cohorts  he  had  given  the  brutal 
order  not  to  return  the  shout,  and  to  fall  on  the  Jews,  sword 
in  hand,  if  the^  showed  any  signs  of  dissatisfaction.  A  tumult 
naturally  arose,  and  many  of  the  defenceless  Jews  were  mas- 
sacred or  crushed  to  death.  Next  day  the  people  were  in  open 
revolt.  They  drove  back  Florus  from  the  Temple  into  An- 
tonia,  and  demolished  the  covered  way,  down  which  it  had 
been  the  custom  of  the  Roman  soldiers  to  rush  when  any  dis- 
turbance arose  in  the  Temple.  After  these  acts  pardon  was 
impossible,  and  Florus,  having  effected  his  infamous  purpose, 
retired  to  Caesarea,  leaving  only  a  single  cohort  in  the  Castle 
of  Antonia. 


>  See  Jos.  c.  Af>ion.  i.  25  ;  Tac.  H.  v.  4. 


4S0  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

The  principal  Jews,  with  the  Queen  Berenice,  then  went 
to  complain  of  Florus  to  Cestius  Gallus,  the  Legate  of  Syria. 
He  sent  Neapolitanus  and  Agrippa  to  Jerusalem  to  make  in- 
quiries, and  Agrippa  sincerely  tried  to  save  the  people  from 
rebellion.  They  were  willing  to  make  every  concession  ex- 
cept that  of  continuing  to  obey  Florus.  When  Agrippa  urged 
them  to  do  this,  they  pelted  him  with  stones,  and  drove  him 
from  the  city. 

The  revolt  continued.  Though  occasioned  by  the  tyranny 
of  Florus,  it  was  inspired  by  Messianic  hopes.'  The  strong 
fortress  of  Masada  was  seized  by  the  Zealots,^  and  the  Roman 
garrison  was  put  to  the  sword.  Eleazar,  captain  of  the  Tem- 
ple, refused  to  permit  any  sacrifices  for  the  Emperor.  The 
loyal  party,  aided  by  3,000  Batanean  horsemen,  sent  them  by 
Agrippa,  could  only  command  the  upper  city,  and  this  was 
stormed  after  a  few  days  by  the  Zealots  and  Sicarii,  who  burnt 
the  palaces  of  Agrippa,  Berenice,  and  the  High  Priest  Ana- 
nias. Two  days  after — on  July  5,  a.d.  66 — they  took  the 
tower  of  Antonia,  and  though  they  had  sworn  to  let  the  Roman 
garrison  depart,  they  massacred  the  whole  cohort  with  the 
exception  of  their  head  centurion,  Metilius,  who  basely  pur- 
chased his  life  by  accepting  circumcision.  The  High  Priest 
Ananias  was  dragged  out  of  his  place  of  concealment,  a  sewer 
of  the  Asmonaean  Palace,  and  was  murdered.  By  the  end  of 
September,  66,  Jerusalem  was  in  the  hands  of  the  rebels. 
The  Romans  in  the  strong  fortress  of  Machoerus  capitulated. 
C'ypros  was  taken.  In  five  months  the  whole  of  Palestine — 
Judrea,  Perasa,  Galilee,  and  even  Idumaea — was  in  open  rebel- 
lion against  the  Roman  Empire. 

Then  began  that  internecine  war  of  races — that  horrible 
"epidemic  of  massacre" — which  is  unparalleled  in  the  whole 
of  history.  The  rebellion  failed  chiefly  because  of  the  hatred 
with  which  the  Jews  had  inspired  the  Syrians,  In  Caesarea 
the  Greeks  and  Syrians  attacked  the  Jews,  and  massacred 
them  to  the  number  of  20,000;  while  Florus  seized  the  few 
that  had  escaped  and  sent  them  to  the  galleys.  The  Jews 
avenged  themselves  by  massacring  the  Syrians  in  Philadelphia, 
Heshbon,  Gerasa,  Pella,  Scythopolis,  and  other  towns;  and 
by  laying  waste  with  sword  and  fire  every  city  and  village 


Jc*.  /J.  y.  VI.  5,  %  4.  Joscphus  .ind  Tacitus  are  almost  our  sole  authorities  for  the  his- 
tory of  the  revolt.  C;riitz  iCesch.  d.  Jtiden.  iii.  331-414)  and  Derenbourg  [Hist,  de  Tal. 
355-302)  add  a  few  particulars  gleaned  from  the  Talmud. 

'  The  Zealots  [Kiinnatm)  were  the  fiercest  and  most  unscrupulously  reckless  of  the  na- 
tional party.  They  were  chiefly  Galilaians.  Simon  the  Apostle  was  a  Kanafiite—i.e..  a 
Zealot. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.    48 1 

which  they  could  seize  in  DecapoHs,  Gaulonitis,  vSamaria,  and 
the  maritime  plain.  The  Syrians  took  fearful  reprisals  at  As- 
calon,  Ptolemais,  Tyre,  Hippo,  and  Gadara.  The  madness 
spread  even  to  Alexandria.  The  Prsefect  at  that  time  was 
the  apostate  Jew,  Tiberius  Alexander,  a  nephew  of  Philo.  The 
quarrel  broke  out  when  the  population  were  assembled  in  the 
huge  wooden  anphitheatre.  Insulted  by  the  Greeks,  the  Jews 
hurled  stones  at  their  adversaries,  and  seized  torches  to  set 
fire  to  the  amphitheatre,  and  involve  the  whole  population  in 
destruction.  Unable  to  stop  them  in  any  other  way,  Tiberius 
let  loose  17,000  soldiers  upon  them,  and  50,000  Jews  w^ere 
slain.  Before  the  year  was  ended  there  was  another  horrible 
plot  of  massacre  at  Damascus,  and  10,000  Jews,  unarmed  and 
defenceless,  were  shamefully  butchered  by  their  fellow  citzens. 
Early  in  the  next  year,  the  streets  of  Antloch  also  were  deluged 
with  Jewish  blood. 

Cestius  Gallus  now  marched  southward  with  Agrippa,  at 
the  head  of  a  considerable  force,  to  quell  the  rebellion.  Con- 
flagration and  massacre  marked  his  path.  Zabulon,  Joppa, 
Narbatene,  Mount  Asamon,  Lydda,  were  the  scenes  of  various 
tragedies.  In  October  he  arrived  at  Gibeon.  Though  it  was 
the  Sabbath,  the  Jews,  with  whom  intense  zeal  supplied  the 
place  of  skill  and  discipline,  rushed  to  encounter  him,  and 
killed  515  men,  with  the  loss  of  only  twenty-two  on  their  own 
side,  while  the  rear  of  the  Romans  was  harassed  by  Simon  Bar 
Giora.  Of  the  ambassadors  sent  by  Agrippa  to  appeal  to  the 
Jews,  one  was  killed,  the  other  wounded.  All  hope  of  peace 
being  now  at  an  end,  on  October  30,  Cestius  advanced  to 
Scopus,  at  the  north  of  Jerusalem,  seized  Bezetha,  fired  the 
timber  market,  and  drove  the  rebels  within  the  second  wall. 
If  he  had  shown  the  least  courage  and  resolution,  he  might 
now  without  diffi-culty  have  taken  the  city  by  assault,  and  ended 
the  war,  for  large  numbers  of  the  peaceful  citizens  were  ready 
to  open  the  gates  to  him.  His  irresolution  and  cowardice 
frustrated  their  plans.  Even  when  he  was  on  the  verge  of 
success  he  so  unaccountably  sounded  a  retreat,  that  the  Zea- 
lots, in  a  fury  of  reviving  hope,  chased  him  first  to  Scopus, 
thence  to  Gibeon,  and  finally  inflicted  upon  him  a  desperate 
defeat  at  the  famous  path  of  Bethhoron,  over  which,  in  old 
days,  Joshua  had  uplifted  his  spear  to  bid  the  sun  "stand  still 
upon  Gibeon,  and  thou  moon  in  the  valley  of  Ajalon."  Ces- 
tius left  5,300  footmen  and  380  horsemen  dead  upon  the  field, 
lost  an  eagle,  and,  flying  to  Antipatris,  left  behind  him  the 
military  engines  which  the  Jews  afterwards  turned  to  such 
31 


482  TIIK   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CIIRISTIANITY. 

good  account  against  the  besiegers  of  Jerusalem.  The  sheep, 
as  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  were  now  armed  to  do  battle  against 
the  wolves.  The  Legate  died  soon  after,  weary  of  a  life  which 
had  suffered  so  severe  a  shame. 

The  defeat  of  Cestius  took  place  in  November,  66.  When 
the  news  of  it  reached  Nero  in  Greece,  even  the  supreme  folly 
and  disgrace  of  his  daily  proceedings  did  not  prevent  him 
from  realising  the  gravity  of  the  crisis.  He  saw  that  an  able 
general  was  necessary  to  recover  the  country,  which  he  had 
been  taught  by  soothsayers  to  regard  as  his  future  Empire.' 
He  had  such  a  general  in  Vespasian,  whose  humble  origin  and 
plebeian  surroundings  secured  him  from  jealousy.  Vespasian 
was  then  in  disgrace,  for  having  gone  to  sleep  or  yawned 
while  Nero  was  singing.  When  the  messenger  came  to  an- 
nounce his  elevation  to  the  post  of  commander-in-chief  of  the 
Judrean  legions,  Vespasian  thought  that  he  was  the  bearer  of 
a  death-warrant  from  the  imperial  buffoon.  But  accepting  the 
proffered  command,  he  at  once  took  vigorous  measures,  and 
was  ably  seconded  by  Titus,  his  son. 

Meanwhile — though  it  was  clear  from  the  first  that  the  re- 
volt was  foredoomed  to  defeat,  and  that  the  rebels  would  drag 
nation  and  city  and  Temple  to  destruction — even  serious  citi- 
zens were  swept  away  by  the  tide  of  frenzied  enthusiasm. 
They  may  have  thought  that  the  only  way  to  control  the  revolt 
was  to  range  themselves  at  the  head  of  it.  The  city  was  placed 
under  the  younger  Hanan  and  Joseph  Ben  Gorion.  The 
country  was  divided  into  military  districts.  Gamala  and 
Galilee  were  assigned  to  the  protection  of  the  historian 
Josephus. 

It  was  on  him,  and  the  forces  under  his  command,  that  the 
first  shock  of  battle  fell.  Vespasian  had  formed  the  plan  of 
conquering  the  country  in  detail,  and  of  driving  the  defeated 
population  southwards  in  disorderly  masses  towards  Jerusa- 
lem, where  he  hoped  that  famine  would  expedite  the  work  of 
war.  He  started  from  Antioch  in  March,  a.d.  67.  Then 
once  more  began  the  bath  of  blood  for  the  hapless  race.  Jo- 
sephus, though  he  displayed  both  genius  and  courage,  and 
was  the  nominal  general  of  "more  than  100,000 young  men,"'- 
was  hindered  by  want  of  cavalry,  and  hampered  by  the  rash- 
ness, treachery,  and  opposition  of  followers,  from  whom  his 


,'.  ^"'^';  (-y^*"-  4«)-*  "  Spopondcrant  tamen  quidam  destituto  ei  ordinationem  Orientis,  non- 
nuUi  noininatitn  rrg>iu»t  Hierosolymoruiii ." 

•  .So  he  sayR  (//.  J.  \\.  20,  %  6)  ;  but  perhaps  his  numbers  would  bear  dividing  by  ten  at 
Itait^  and  his  iicms  {*«/,  \  8)  seem  only  to  amount  to  65,350. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  ^HE  APOCALYPSE.   483 

very  life  was  often  in  danger.  Gadara  was  the  first  city  to  fall. 
There,  as  well  as  in  the  surrounding  villages,  men,  women, 
and  children  were  indiscriminately  slain.  For  forty-six  days 
Josephus  defended  Jotapata.  On  the  forty-seventh  it  was 
betrayed.  Forty  thousand  Jews  had  fallen  in  the  siege;  i,2co 
were  made  prisoners;  the  city  was  committed  to  the  flames. 
At  Ascalon  10,000  Jews  were  slaughtered.  At  Japha  27,000 
were  killed,  and  the  women  and  children  were  sold  into  slavery. 
On  Mount  Gerizim  many  Samaritans  perished  of  thirst,  and 
11,600  fell  before  the  soldiers  of  Celearis.  At  Joppa,  8,400 
had  been  slain  by  Cestius  and  the  city  burnt.  But  a  number 
of  fugitives  had  ensconced  themselves  in  the  ruins,  and  were 
living  by  piracy  and  brigandage.  These  Jews  fled  to  their 
ships  before  the  advance  of  the  Roman  soldiers.  Next  morn- 
ing a  storm  burst  on  them,  and,  after  a  frightful  scene  of 
despair,  4,200  were  drowned,  and  their  corpses  were  washed 
upon  the  shore.  Taricheae  was  a  strongly-fortified  city  on  the 
shores  of  Lake  Tiberias.  It  was  taken  by  Titus,  and  6,oco 
Jews  dyed  with  their  blood  the  waters  of  that  crystal  sea. 
Titus  had  promised  safety  to  the  inhabitants,  but  in  spite  of 
this  2,200  of  the  aged  and  the  young  were  massacred  in  the 
Gymnasium;  6,000  of  the  strongest  were  sent  to  Nero  to  dig 
through  the  Isthmus  of  Corinth;  and  30,400  citizens  of  this 
and  neighbouring  cities,  including  some  whom  Vespasian  had 
given  to  Agrippa,  were  sold  as  slaves. 

After  this  dreadful  experience,  nearly  the  whole  district 
submitted  to  the  conqueror.  Gamala,  however,  still  resisted. 
It  was  deemed  impregnable  by  its  citizens,  since  it  was  built 
at  the  top  of  a  mountain,  accessible  only  by  one  path,  which 
was  intersected  by  a  deep  ditch.  Agrippa  besieged  it  for 
seven  months  in  vain.  Then  Vespasian  invested  it.  Pressed 
by  hunger,  of  which  many  died,  some  of  the  citizens  climbed 
down  the  precipice,  or  escaped  through  the  sewers.  At  last, 
aided  by  a  storm,  the  Romans  took  it  on  October  23,  a.d.  67. 
Once  more  there  was  a  fearful  slaughter.  Two  women  alone 
escaped;  4,000  were  slain  in  the  defence;  5,000  flung  them- 
selves down  the  precipices;  all  the  rest — even  the  women  and 
children — were  cut  to  pieces  or  thrown  down  the  rocks. 

Mount  Tabor,  which  Josephus  had  fortified,  still  held  out. 
Placidus  drew  away  some  of  its  defenders  by  a  feigned  flight, 
and  the  rest  were  driven  to  surrender  from  want  of  water. 
We  are  not  informed  of  the  number  of  the  slain. 

Giscala,  the  native  city  of  the  Zealot  John,  was  the  last  to 
succumb.     John  fled  from  it  with  his  adherents,  and  in  the 


484  THE   EARLY   D¥l\'S   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

pursuit  of  them  by  the  troops  of  Titus,  6,000  women  and  chil- 
dren were  slain. 

After  this  the  Roman  generals  led  their  troops  mto  waiter 
quarters,  postponing  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  till  the  following 
year.  But  this  respite  brought  no  peace  to  the  miserable  and 
polluted  city.  John  of  Giscala,  escaping  to  Jerusalem,  ex- 
cused his  flight  by  saying  that  it  was  not  worth  while  to  defend 
other  cities  so  long  as  the  Jews  possessed  such  a  stronghold 
as  Jerusalem,  which  the  Romans,  unless  they  made  them- 
selves wings,  could  never  reach.  By  such  boastings  he  fired 
the  audacity  of  the  young  and  the  fanatical.  Brigandage  in- 
creased on  all  sides,  and  the  Zealots  were  guilty  of  such  atro- 
cities that  many  preferred  to  throw  themselves  on  the  mercy 
of  the  Romans.  By  night  and  by  day,  openly  and  in  secret, 
murder,  pillage,  and  every  form  of  crime  raged  in  the  Holy 
City.  The  rich  and  noble  were  seized  in  multitudes  on  the 
false  charge  of  treachery,  and  were  put  to  death,  partly  to  get 
rid  of  their  authority,  partly  to  plunder  their  goods.  For  the 
purpose  of  humiliating  the  priests,  it  was  pretended  that  the 
High  Priest  ought  to  be  chosen  by  lot,  and  they  thrust  into 
the  venerable  office  a  poor  peasant,  who  was  totally  ignorant 
of  the  necessary  duties.  Hanan  the  Younger,  a  man  of  great 
courage  and  of  high  authority,  because  he  and  his  family  had 
long  been  the  wealthiest  and  most  eminent  of  the  High  Priests, 
made  one  more  attempt  to  rouse  the  wretched  citizens  against 
this  brutal  tyranny,  which,  in  the  name  of  religion  and  patri- 
otism, was  guilty  of  the  most  awful  crimes.  To  the  last,  and 
to  the  utmost  of  his  power,  he  was  true  to  the  traditional  policy 
of  his  house,  which  was  so  to  act  that  "the  Romans  might  not 
come  and  take  away  their  place  and  nation."^  It  was  for  this 
reason  only  that  he  had  so  far  yielded  as  to  give  an  apparent 
sanction  to  the  revolt.  But  he  was  as  little  able  to  stay  the 
shocks  of  the  subsequent  earthquake  as  Mirabeau  or  Lafayette 
to  stem  the  course  of  the  French  Revolution.  When  these  tre- 
mendous outbreaks  have  fairly  begun,  their  issues  always  be- 
long to  the  mo.st  violent.  The  Zealots  were  the  Montagnards 
of  the  Jewish  revolt.  John  of  Giscala,  while  he  swore  a  most 
solemn  oath  that  he  was  faithful  to  the  party  of  moderation, 
betrayed  all  their  plans  to  the  Zealots.  A  combat  ensued,  in 
which  the  party  of  Hanan  succeeded  in  driving  the  Zealots 
into  the  inner  courts  of  the  Temple.     Then,  at  the  instigation 


'  John  xl  48-50.:  xviii.  14.     Josephus,  with  his  usual  untrustworthiness  where  he  had  any 
purpoie  to  serve,  directly  contradicts  liiinself  as  to  the  character  of  Hanan  (B.  7.  iv.  3,  §  7  ; 

rit.  39). 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  ArOCALVPSK.   485 

of  John,  the  Zealots  introduced  3,000  Idumeans  into  the  city, 
by  sawing  through  the  bars  of  the  city  gates,  on  a  night  of 
such  violent  storm  that  they  were  not  heard  or  suspected. 
The  Idumeans,  once  admitted,  began  to  massacre  the  people. 
When  their  presence  was  discovered,  a  wild  wail  of  terror  rang 
through  the  night,  and  many  of  Hanan's  party  flung  them- 
selves in  despair  from  the  walls  and  porticos  of  the  Temple. 
The  massacre  was  continued  in  the  city.  Zealots  and  Idu- 
means scourged  and  tortured  the  most  eminent  citizens,  and 
murdered  the  wealthy  Zachariah,  the  son  of  Baruch,  under 
circumstances  of  peculiar  brutality.'  They  not  only  killed 
Hanan  the  Younger,  and  Jesus  son  of  Gamala,  but  with  un- 
heard-of ruthlessness,  stripped  naked  the  bodies  of  these  ven- 
erable priests,  and  flung  them  forth  unburied  to  be  devoured 
by  dogs  and  jackals. 

The  scenes  enacted  at  Jerusalem  during  this  year,  a.d,  68, 
and  the  year  following,  may  perhaps  be  faintly  paralleled  by 
the  worst  orgies  of  the  Reign  of  Terror,  but  far  exceeded 
them  in  stark  and  irredeemable  wickedness.  The  Idumeans^ 
says  Josephus,  "fell  upon  the  people  as  a  flock  of  profane 
animals,  and  cut  their  throats."  It  was  not  long  before  they 
were  so  gorged  with  plunder,  so  sated  with  blood,  so  sick  of 
their  own  brutalities,  that  with  a  qualm  of  self-disgust  they 
expressed  repentance,  opened  the  prisons  which  they  had 
themselves  filled,  and,  leaving  the  city,  joined  Simon,  the  son 
of  Giora.  But  the  Zealots  did  not  pause  for  a  moment  in  their 
work  of  horror.  They  murdered  Gorion,  and  Niger  of  Perea, 
and  every  noble  citizen  that  was  left.  They  sold  to  the  rich 
permission  to  fly,  and  murdered  all  who  attempted  to  escape 
without  bribing  them.  Vespasian  and  his  soldiers  were  glad 
to  look  on  and  see  these  infatuated  wretches  do  the  work  of 
their  Roman  enemies.  Mercy  seemed  to  be  dead.  All  the 
streets  of  the  city,  all  the  roads  about  the  city,  were  heaped 
with  unburied  corpses,  which  putrefied  in  the  sun.  Brigands 
and  sicarii  raged  uncontrolled,  and  the  Zealots,  who  had 
seized  Masada,  attacked  the  town  of  Engedi,  murdered  more 
than  700  women  and  children,  pillaged  the  town,  and  terror- 
ised the  whole  coast  of  the  Dead  Sea. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  when  the  campaign  reopened 
in  the  spring  of  68.  The  first  task  of  Vespasian  was  to  seize 
Gadara.  At  Bethennabris  there  was  another  slaughter.  Pla- 
cidus  pursued  the  fugitive  Jews  to  Jericho.     It  happened  that 

'  In  Matt,  xxiii.  35.  "Son  of  IJarachias,"  is  probably  an  ancient  but  mistaken  gloss  (sec  my 
Life  0/  Christ,  ii.  p.  246,  «.). 


486  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

at  this  time  the  Jordan  was  in  flood.  Such  multitudes  were 
drowned  that  the  river  and  the  Dead  Sea  were  filled  with 
corpses,  as  the  Sea  of  Galilee  had  been  after  the  siege  of  Tar- 
ichea.  Thirteen  thousand  were  left  dead  upon  the  field; 
2. 200  were  taken  prisoners.  Every  other  Perean  town  which 
offered  resistance  was  taken.  Those  who  took  refuge  in  boats 
on  the  Dead  Sea  were  chased  and  slain.  On  the  eastern 
bank  of  the  Jordan  Machaerus  alone  remained  in  the  hands  of 
the  rebels. 

The  reader  may  now  understand  somthing  of  the  force  of 
the  expression  in  the  Apocalypse,  that  when  the  vintage  of 
the  land  was  trodden,  the  blood  without  the  city  rolled  in  a 
torrent,  bridle  deep,  for  a  distance  of  1,600  furlongs.'  The 
length  of  the  Holy  Land,  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  is  139 
miles;  but  over  a  still  larger  area,  from  Tyre — nay,  even  from 
Damascus — in  the  north,  to  Engedi  in  the  south,  the  whole 
country  had  been  scathed  with  fire  and  drowned  in  blood. 
The  expression  of  the  seer  w^ould  hardly  seem  an  hyperbole 
to  one  who  had  seen  the  foul  red  stains  which  had  polluted 
the  silver  Lake  of  Gennesareth;  the  Jordan  choked  with  pu- 
trefying corpses;  even  the  waves  of  the  Dead  Sea  rendered 
loathlier  than  their  wont  wnth  the  carcases  of  the  countless 
slain.  No  one  could  witness,  no  one  could  think  of  those 
unsparing  massacres  without  having  his  eyes  dimmed,  as  it 
were,  with  a  mist  of  blood.  "For  seven  years,"  says  the 
'i'almud,  "did  the  nations  of  the  world  cultivate  their  vine- 
yards with  no  other  manure  than  the  blood  of  Israel."  ^ 

But  in  truth  when  we  read  the  Jewish  annals  of  these  years, 
we  never  seem  to  have  reached  the  cumulus  of  horrors.  It 
was  in  van  that — even  after  he  seemed  to  have  drawn  round 
Jerusalem  his  "circle  of  extermination" — Vespasian  was 
•  ailed  away  from  the  scene.  He  arrived  at  Jericho  on  June  3, 
A.I).  68,  but  his  attention  was  at  once  diverted  into  an  entirely 
tlifferent  direction.  Vindex  revolted  from  Nero  on  March 
15;  (ialba  on  April  3;  the  Praetorians  revolted  on  June  8;  on 
June  9  Nero  committed  suicide.  Vespasian  had  been  flattered 
by  dreams  and  prognostications  of  future  Empire,  to  which 
his  ears  were  always  open.  Up  to  this  titne,  however,  he  had 
not  committed  himself,  and  he  now  sent  Titus  with  Agrippa 
to  salute  Galba  as  his  legitimate  Emperor.  Before  they  ar- 
rived, the  news  came  that  on  January  2,  a.d.  69,  Vitellius  had 
been  proclaimed  Emper(jr  by  the  legions  of  Germany,  and  that 


'^  Clittin,  f.  57,  a. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.   487 

on  January  15  Galba  had  been  niurdered,  and  Otho  proclaimed 
by  the  Praetorians.  Vespasian  was  not  prepared  to  acknowl- 
edge either  Otho  or  Vitellius.  He  paused  in  his  warlike 
operations  to  watch  the  course  of  events.  But  the  doomed 
and  miserable  land,  and  the  yet  more  doomed  and  miserable 
city,  were  far  from  profiting  by  this  respite.  It  seemed  as  if 
the  Zealots  were  now  drunken  with  blood  and  fury.  Simon, 
son  of  Giora,  had  got  together  an  army  of  slaves  and  cut- 
throats, and  was  spreading  terror  far  and  wide.  He  conquered 
the  Idumeans,  and  desolated  their  country  with  fire  and  sword. 
He  repelled  an  attack  of  the  Zealots,  and  drove  them  back 
into  Jerusalem.  When,  by  a  stratagem,  they  had  captured 
his  wife,  he  seized  all  who  came  out  of  the  city,  cut  off  their 
hands,  sent  them  back,  and  threatened  to  treat  every  one  of 
the  citizens  in  the  same  way,  if  his  wife  were  not  restored  to 
him.  Power  was  given  to  the  mystic  rider  of  the  Red  Horse, 
says  St.  John,  "to  take  peace  from  the  earth,  and  that  men 
should  slay  one  another.'"  -Civil  war  raged  within  and  with- 
out the  city  with  such  fury,  that  the  Romans  almost  appeared 
in  the  guise  of  friends.  All  who  attempted  to  fly  from  Simon 
were  murdered  by  John;  all  the  fugitives  of  John  were  mur- 
dered by  Simon.  At  last,  in  despair  at  the  tyranny  of  John, 
the  people  admitted  Simon  within  the  walls.  The  only  differ- 
ence was  that  they  had  now  two  tyrants  instead  of  one.  John 
and  his  Zealots  were  confined  to  the  Temple,  and  were  the 
fewer  in  number;  but  from  its  height  and  impregnable  position 
they  were  enabled  to  make  sallies,  and  to  hurl  down  upon 
their  enemies  from  the  captured  engines  of  the  Romans,  a 
perfect  hail  of  missiles.  In  the  incessant  collision  between 
the  hostile  factions,  all  the  houses  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
Temple  were  burnt  down.  It  was  surrounded  by  a  chaos  of 
blackened  ruins,  in  which  unburied  corpses  bred  pestilence  in 
the  summer  noon.  Not  only  the  streets,  but  even  the  courts 
and  altar  of  the  Temple  constantly  swam  in  blood.  IViest 
and  pilgrim  mingled  their  blood  with  their  sacrifices,  smitten 
down  by  balistae  or  catapults  as  they  stood  beside  the  altar. 
Their  feet  were  soiled,  so  that  they  polluted  every  corner  of 
the  holy  precincts  with  steps  encrimsoned  by  the  uncleansed 
pools  of  gore,  which  told  the  tale  of  daily  slaughter.  Every 
semblance  of  performing  the  rites  of  religion  was  reduced  to 
the  most  monstrous  mockery.  It  was  impossible  that  men 
could  breathe  this  reeking  atmosphere  of  blood  and  crime,  in 

»  Rev.  vi.  A. 


488  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

which  every  brain  seemed  to  reel  with  the  hideous  intoxica- 
tion, witiio'ut  a  total  collapse  of  the  moral  sense.  At  the  very 
time  that  the  Zealots  were  representing  themselves  as  the  God- 
protected  champions  of  a  cause  the  most  sacred  in  the  world, 
they  had  become  so  dead  to  every  precept  of  religion,  that, 
putting  on  the  robes  and  ornaments  of  women,  decking  their 
hair,  painting  underneath  their  eyes,  but  carrying  swords 
under  their  gay  female  apparel,  they  plunged  headlong  into 
such  nameless  obscenities,  that  it  seemed  as  if  the  city  had 
become  not  only  a  slaughter-house,  and  a  robbers'  cave,  but 
a  very  cage  of  unclean  beasts,  fit  only  to  be  taken  and  de- 
stroved.  "How  is  the  faithful  city  become  an  harlot!  It  was 
full  of  justice!  Righteousness  lodged  in  her,  but  now  mur- 
derers.'" Very  early,  amid  these  scenes  of  horror,  it  must 
have  been  evident  to  the  little  Christian  community,  that  "the 
abominable  wing  that  maketh  desolate,"^  was  standing  in  the 
Holy  Place,  which  was  now  more  shamelessly  defiled  than  any 
>hrine  of  Moloch  or  Baal  Peor.  .  Well  might  they  recognise 
that  the  city  which  was  known  as  "the  Holy,  the  Noble,"  was 
"spiritually  called  Sodom  and  Egypt,  where  also  their  Lord 
was  crucified."' 


Thus  horrible  was  the  aspect  of  the  world — politically, 
morally^  socially,  even  physically — during  the  months  in  which 
the  Apocalypse  was  written.  Physically  men  seemed  to  be 
tormented  and  terrified  with  catastrophes  and  portents.  "Be- 
sides the  manifold  changes  and  chances  of  human  affairs," 
>ays  Tacitus,  "there  were  prodigies  in  heaven  and  on  earth, 
ihe  warnings  of  lightnings,  and  the  presages  of  the  future, 
now  joyous,  now  gloomy,  now  obscure,  now  unmistakable. 
I'^or  never  was  it  rendered  certain  by  clearer  indications,  or 
by  more  deadly  massacres  of  the  Roman  people,  that  the  gods 
care  nothing  for  our  happiness,  but  do  care  for  our  retribu- 
tion."* In  Rome  a  pestilence  had  carried  off  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  the  citizens.  A  disastrous  inundation  of  the  Tiber 
had  impeded  the  march  of  Otho's  troops,  and  encumbered  the 
roads  with  ruins.'  In  Lydia  an  encroachment  of  the  sea  had 
wrought  fearful  havoc.  In  Asia  city  after  city  had  been  shat- 
tered to  the  dust  by  earthquakes."     "The  world  itself  is  being 


!  [*»•  »•  ?«•  '  Dan.  jx.  27  :  xi.  31 ;  xii.  11  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  15  ;  Mark  xiii.  14. 

\  ^^•^■•  ^,n,  X  .'  '^^<=-  ^'-  '•  3-  ^  Tac.  H.  i.  86. 

•I       1        A  '"n  (^'»7''-  ^-P-   '7)  mentions  Kphesus,  Magnesia,  Sardis,  .^gae,  Philadelphia. 
.rTmcntioiSj   "'^'  *"'*"■  *■'  '''''"''  '"'°''  °^  '^•^  Si6j,lli»es  (iii.  337-366)  many  others 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.   489 

shaken  to  pieces,"  says  Seneca,  "and  there  is  universal  con- 
sternation.'" Comets,  ecHpses,  meteors,  parhehons,  terrified 
the  ignorant,  and  were  themselves  the  pretexts  for  imperial 
cruelties.^  Auroras  tinged  the  sky  with  blood,  Volcanos 
seemed,  like  Vesuvius,  to  be  waking  to  new  fury.^  Morally^ 
the  state  of  the  Pagan  world  was  such  as  we  have  seen.  It  was 
sunk  so  low  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Pagan  moralists  of  the 
empire,  posterity  could  but  imitate  and  could  not  surpass  such 
a  virulence  of  degradation.  Thestate  of  the  Jewish  world  is 
revealed  alike  in  the  Gospels,  in  the  Talmud,  and  in  the 
writings  of  Josephus.  It  may  suffice  to  quote  the  opinion  of 
the  latter  that  his  own  generation  in  Judea  was  the  wickedest 
that  the  world  had  seen,  and  that  if  the  avenging  sword  of 
the  Romans  had  not  smitten  Jerusalem  with  God's  vengeance, 
the  very  earth  must  have  opened  to  swallow  up  her  iniquities. 
Socially,  we  see  how  desperate  was  the  condition  alike  of  Jews 
and  Pagans,  in  St.  Paul,  St.  James,  and  Josephus  on  the  one 
hand,  and  in  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  and  the  Satirists  on  the 
other.  Politically,  the  whole  empire  was  in  a  state  of  agita- 
tion. That  the  sacred  sun  of  the  Julii  should  set  in  a  sea  of 
blood  seemed  an  event  frightfully  ominous,  while,  owing  to 
the  obscurity  which  hung  about  the  death  gf  Nero,  and  the 
very  small  number  of  those  who  had  seen  his  corpse,  and  the 
prophecies  which  had  always  been  current  about  his  complete 
restoration,  not  only  was  there  a  universal  belief  that  he  would 
return,  but  as  early  as  the  end  of  a.d.  68  a  false  Nero  gained 
many  adherents,  and  caused  wide -spread  alarm.'  The  elec- 
tion of  Galba  by  the  legions  of  Spain  seemed  to  divulge  a 
secret  full  of  disaster — the  fact  that  an  emperor  could  be 
created  elsewhere  than  at  Rome.  Emperor  after  emperor 
died  by  suicide  or  by  the  hands  of  assassins. 

"  In  outlines  dim  and  vast 
Their  fearful  shadows  cast 

The  giant  forms  of  Empires  on  their  way 
To  ruin  ; — one  by  one 
They  tower,  and  tliey  are  gone — " 

The  Romish  world  and  the  Jewish  world  were  alike  rent 
by  civil  war.  There  were  banquets  in  the  reign  of  Nero  at 
which  seven  emperors  and  the  father  of  an  eighth — for  the 
most  part  entirely  unrelated  to  one  another — might  have  met 
under  the  same  roof,  namely  Nero,  Galba,  Otho,  Vitellius, 
Vespasian,  Titus,   Domitian,    Nerva,    and  the  elder  Trajan;" 


Sen.  Nni.  Qu.  vi.  i.  "^  Suet.  Ner.  36.  3  Tac.  Aun.  xv.  2a. 

*  Suet.  Ner.  40,  57.  ^  Rcnan,  VAntechrist,  p.  481. 


490  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  five  of  these,  if  not  six,  died  violent  deaths.  Every  gene- 
ral oi  the  smallest  eminence  became  ambitious  to  raise  him- 
self to  "the  dread  summits  of  Caesarian  power.'"  Vindex, 
Nymphidius,  Galba,  Vitellius,  Vespasian,  Claudius  Macer  in 
Africa,  Fonteius  Capito  in  Germany,  Betuus  Chilo  in  Gaul, 
Obultronius  and  Cornelius  Sabinus  in  Spain,  were  all  seized 
with  the  vertigo  of  this  ambition;  while  the  generals  who 
helped  their  various  attempts — such  as  C^cina,  Valens,  Mu- 
cianus,  Antonius  Primus — became  themselves  the  objects  of 
jealousy  and  suspicion.  More  than  once  the  soldiers  had 
serious  thoughts  of  murdering  all  the  senators,  in  order  to 
keep  the  whole  government  of  the  world  in  their  own  hands. ^ 
Almost  alone  among  the  crowd  of  military  chieftains  Virginius 
stood  superior  to  these  dreams  of  usurpation,  and  when  he 
died  peacefully,  full  of  years  and  honours,  he  deserved  the 
proud  epitaph  which  .he  engraved  upon  his  tomb,  that  he, 
when  Vindex  was  defeated,^  "claimed  the  Empire  not  for 
himself  but  for  his  country."*  The  fatal  results  of  consular 
ambition  might  be  seen  on  the  field  of  Bedriacum.  There  the 
very  roads  were  obstructed  with  the  mounds  of  the  dead,  and 
the  massacre  was  all  the  more  deadly  because  Romans  could 
not  be  sold  as  slaves,  so  that  no  one  on  either  side  w^as  tempted 
to  pause  from  slaughter  in  the  hope  of  booty.  After  a  desper- 
ate hand-to-hand  conflict  between  Romans  and  Romans,  which 
heaped  the  field  with  an  almost  incredible  number  of  the 
slain,*  "the  soldiers  fell  sobbing  into  one  another's  arms,  and 
all  denounced  in  common  the  wickedness  of  civil  war."  Amid 
portents  so  threatening  and  scenes  so  terrible,  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  hearts  of  men  should  have  been  failing  them  for  fear. 
There  had  been  for  many  years  an  all  but  universal  impression 
tl-.at  the  days  of  Rome  were  numbered.  It  had  probably  origi- 
nated from  the  expectations  of  Jews  and  Christians,  and  is 
found  again  and  again  in  the  Sibylline  books."  In  Dion  Cas- 
sias we  read  that  a  proverb  was  prevalent  that  when  thrice 
three  hundred  years  had  passed,  or  in  the  beginning  of  the 
tenth  century  since  Rome  was  founded,  she  should  perish.' 
It  was  even  sung  as  a  song  in  the  streets,  that  after  thrice 
three  hundred  years  internal  sedition  should  destroy  the  Ro- 

>  Sec  Mcrivale.  //«/.  vi.  374  ...  *  T^c.  //.  i.  80;   Dion.  Cass.  Ixiv.  9. 


Tac.  //.  ii. 


Hie  situs  est  Rufus,  pulso  qui  Vindice  quondam. 
Impcnum  asscruit  non  sibi  sed  patriae."— (Plin.  /C/.  vi.  10.) 


O.C  u!,!l'!:]li?**'-i"  ^■!'''''  A°/'  f^<="''ons  t>ic  fearful  but  most  improbable  total  of  400,000  ireaaa- 
IHi  ^vp<a6*f).      I  .-.citus  {//.  u.  44)  calls  it  a  sfrart^s.  ,       '        ^ 

■  \\'^''^:r"^>{^ .'''  'S,  19:  iii.  46-59:  vii.  Ill-, ,2,  etc. 
'  I'lun  Las!>.  ivii.  18;  Ixn.  18. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.   491 

mans;  and  at  a  later  period,  the  line  "Last  of  the  descendants 
of  ALneas,  a  matricide  shall  reign,"  was  on  everybody's  lips. 
"Rome  shall  be  ruins,"  says  one  of  the  Sibyllists,  writing  long 
before  the  Apocalypse.  The  calculations  of  that  Jewish  form 
of  Kabbalism  which  was  known  as  Gematria — or  the  substitu- 
tion of  numerical  values  for  words — led  the  writers  of  the 
Sibyllines  to  notice  that  the  numerical  value  of  the  letters  of 
Rome  was  948,  and  they  therefore  prophesied  that  in  that 
year  Rome  should  be  destroyed.^  They  thought  that  Nero 
would  awake  from  the  dead  to  accomplish  this  vengeance; 
and  that  "dark  blood  should  mark  the  track  of  the  lieast.""'' 
The  Sibyls,  says  Lactantius,  "say  openly  that  Rome  shall 
perish,  and  that  by  the  judgment  of  God."^  The  topic  of 
them  all  is,  in  prophetic  language,  "The  burden  of  Rome." 

And  amid  all  these  evils — these  multiplied  signs  of  the  ap- 
proaching end — the  "woes  of  the  Messiah"  afflicted  the 
Church  also.  Two  of  the  greatest  cities  of  the  world — Rome, 
the  spiritual  Babylon,  Jerusalem,  the  spiritual  Sodom — had 
drunk  deep  of  the  blood  of  the  prophets  and  saints  of  Christ. 
Nor  had  the  guilt  of  such  murders  been  confined  to  them. 
"Through  all  the  provinces"  it  seemed  as  if  Satan  had  come 
down  having  great  wrath,  as  knowing  that  his  time  was  short. 
Many  a  nameless  martyr  in  the  various  cities  of  the  Empire 
had  been  added  to  that  "vast  multitude,"  who,  in  the  Nero- 
nian  persecution,  had  suffered  their  baptism  of  blood.  Yet 
even  persecution  from  without  had  not  secured  the  Church 
from  the  growth  of  deadly  heresies  within.  Every  one  of  the 
Apostles  had  been  driven  to  utter  words  of  sternest  warning 
against  teachers  who,  while  they  called  themselves  Christians, 
were  guilty  of  worse  than  heathen  wickedness — who  turned 
the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness,  and  made  their  liberty  a 
cloak  for  evil  lives.  Thus  alike  the  Jewish  and  the  heathen 
world,  each  at  the  nadir  of  their  degradation  and  impiety, 
were  bent  upon  the  destruction  of  Christ's  little  flock;  and 
even  into  that  little  flock  had  intruded  many  who  came  in 
sheep's  clothing,  though  inwardly  they  were  ravening  wolves. 


Such  were  "the  signs  of  the  times"  during  the  course  of 
these  awful  years  in  which  St.  John  found  himself  on  the 
rocky  isle  "that  is  called  Patmos,"*  and  uttered  his  prophecies 

1  'PcojuiTj  =  100  +  8co  +  40  +  8  =  948.     {Orac.  Sib.  viii.  147.) 

2  Id.  157.  ^  Lactant.  Dh>.  Inst.  vii.  15. 

■•  'J'he  expression  militates  against  the  notion  of  Renan^  that  Patnios  was  at  this  time  popu- 
lous ami  well-known. 


492  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

respecting  the  past,  the  present,  and  the  immediate  future. 
In  those  prophecies  we  see  the  aspect  of  the  age  as  it  presented 
itself  to  the  inspired  mind  of  a  Christian  and  an  Apostle;  and 
we  can  compare  and  contrast  it  with  the  aspects  which  it  pre- 
sented to  heathens  like  Tacitus  and  Suetonius,  or  to  Jews  like 
Joseph  us  and  the  authors  or  interpolators  of  the  Books  of 
Enoch  and  Esdras.  It  is  true  that  our  want  of  familiarity 
with  Apocalyptic  symbols  which  were  familiar  to  the  Jewish 
Christians  of  that  epoch,  seems  at  first  to  give  to  many  of  the 
Apostle's  thoughts  an  unwonted  obscurity.  But,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  obscurity  does  not  affect  those  elements  of  the  book 
which  we  at  once  feel  to  be  of  the  most  eternal  import;  and 
on  the  other,  we  are  only  left  in  the  dark  about  minor  details 
which  have  found  no  distinct  record  in  history.  Let  any 
student  compare  the  symbols  of  the  Apocalypse  with  those  of 
Joel,  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  Zechariah,  and  Daniel;  let  him  then  see 
how  those  symbols  are  applied  by  the  almost  contemporary 
writers  of  such  Jewish  Apocalypses  as  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the 
Fourth  Book  of  Esdras,  and  the  Vision  of  Baruch;  let  him 
meditate  on  the  conditions  of  the  age  in  the  particulars  which 
we  have  just  been  passing  in  review;  lastly,  let  him  bear  in 
mind  the  luminous  principle  that  the  Apocalypse  is  a  stormy 
comment  upon  the  great  discourse  of  our  Lord  on  Olivet,  as 
it  was  being  interpreted  by  the  signs  of  the  times,  and  he  will 
read  the  Vision  of  the  Apostle  with  a  freshness  of  interest  and 
a  clearness  of  apprehension  such  as  he  may  never  previously 
have  enjoyed.  He  will  then  see  in  it,  from  first  to  last,  the 
words  "i^Iaran  atha!  the  Lord  cometh!"  He  will  recognise 
that  the  contemplated  Coming  was  first  fulfilled  in  the  catas- 
trophe which  closed  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  the  inaugu- 
ration of  the  last  age  of  the  world.  He  will  find  that  the 
Apocalypse  is  what  it  professes  to  be — an  inspired  outline  of 
contemporary  history,  and  of  the  events  to  which  the  sixth 
decade  of  the  first  century  gave  immediate  rise.  He  will  read 
in  it  the  tremendous  counter-manifesto  of  a  Christian  Seer 
against  the  bloodstained  triumph  of  imperial  heathendom;  a 
pican  and  a  prophecy  over  the  ashes  of  the  martyrs;  "the 
thundering  reverberation  of  a  mighty  spirit,"  struck  by  the 
fierce  plectrum  of  the  Neronian  persecution,  and  answering 
in  impassioned  music  which,  like  many  of  David's  Psalms, 
dies  away  into  the  language  of  rapturous  hope. 

And  thus  we  shall  strive  to  overcome  that  spirit  of  dislike 
to  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  which  has  existed  in  so  many 
ages.     We  have  already  seen  that  this  dislike  exi.sted  among 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.    493 

the  Alogi/  and  that  it  finds  expression  in  the  remains  of  the 
Presbyter  Gains,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  and  Eusebius  of 
Ca^sarea.  In  later  ages  the  disinclination  to  accept  its  au- 
thenticity found  more  or  less  open  expression  in  the  writings 
of  Erasmus,  Calvin,  Zwingli,  Luther,  CEcolampadius,  Bucer, 
Carlstadt,  as- well  as  in  those  of  Scaliger,  Lowth,  Schleier- 
macher,  Goethe,  and  many  others.  This  alienation  from  the 
book  arose  in  the  ancient  Church  from  the  abuse  of  it  by  the 
fanaticism  and  narrowness  of  the  Chiliasts;  in  the  modern 
Church  from  the  Hellenic  taste  which  took  offence  at  its 
Judaic  imagery,  and  from  the  discredit  which  it  has  suffered 
at  the  hands  of  rash,  uncharitable,  and  half-educated  inter- 
preters. Even  the  most  reverent  enquirers  have  pronounced 
it  to  be  unintelligible.'^  Such  views  of  it  can  only  be  removed 
by  a  reasonable,  a  charitable,  and — at  least  within  broad  limits 
— a  certain  exegesis. 

For  if  indeed  the  Apocalypse  were  the  kind  of  treatise  which 
it  has  become  in  the  hands  of  controversialists  from  the  Abbot 
Joachim  downwards — if  it  were  a  synopsis  of  anticipated 
Church  history,  ringing  with  the  most  vehement  anathemas 
of  sectarian  hatred,  and  yet  shrouded  in  such  ambiguity  that 

1  The  Alogi  were  those  who  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  and  therefore  the  writings 
of  St.  John.  The  name  of  this  obscure  sect,  which  had  its  headquarters  at  Thyatira,  seems 
to  have  been  invented  by  Epiphanius  : — enel  ovv  tov  Aoyov  ov  SexovTai,  ....  aAo-yoi.  K\r}9r)- 
o-ovTaL  [Haer.  li.  3).  They  attributed  the  Apocalypse  to  Cerinthus,  declaring  that  a  book 
about  seals,  trumpets,  etc.,  was  unworthy  of  an  Apostle,  and  saying  that  he  addressed  a 
Church  in  Thyatira,  when  there  was  no  Church  in  Thyatira. 

2  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  says  that  the  Alogi  spoke  with  positive  scorn  (xAeua^oj'Tes)  of 
the  Apocalypse,  and  that  some,  before  his  day,  not  only  rejected  it,  but  criticised  it  chapter 
by  chapter  to  demonstrate  its  illogical  character,  and  denied  that  it  could  be  a  Revelation, 
seeing  that  it  had  been  covered  with  so  dense  a  veil  of  non-inteliigibility.  They,  like  Gaius, 
attributed  it  to  Cerinthus.  Junilius  tells  us  that  the  Eastern  Church  had  great  doubts  about 
it.  '"  Faieor  iiiulta  me  in  ejus  dictis  saepissime  legendo  scr7efatum  esse  nee  intellexisse^^^ 
says  Primasius,  even  in  the  sixth  century.  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  [Opf>.  ii.  44,  ed.  Paris) 
quotes  from  the  Apocalypse  as  a  writing  of  St.  John,  iv  awOKpv4>OL?  ...  6c'  aij/iy/xaro?  Aeyov- 
Tos,  but  this  expression  does  noi  necessarily  mean  that  he  regarded  it  as  deutero-canonical. 
Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  said  that  the  book  had  as  many  mysteries  as  words  (Ep.  Iiii.  ad 
Paulinmn)^  and  Augustine  admitted  that  it  was  full  of  obscurities,  due  in  part  to  its  repeti- 
tion of  the  same  events  with  different  symbols,  and  in  part  to  the  absence  of  definitive  clues. 
'*  Kt  in  hoc  quidem  libra  obscure  ittulta  dicuntur  .  .  .  et pauca  in  eo  sunt  e.x  qxiorum 
7nanifestatio?ie  i?idagentur  caetera  cum  labore,  inaxi>ne  quia  sic  eadem  jnultis  modis  re- 
petii"  (Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei,  xx.  17).  Nicolaus  CoUado  [Methodus,  1584)  dwells  on  the  same 
peculiarity  (see  DUsterdieck,  p.  17).  "  Apocalypsifii  fateor  7ne  nescire  exponere  juxta 
sensuin  literalem  ;  exponat  cui  Dcus  concessit,^^  wrote  Cardinal  Cajetan  {Opp.  v.  401). 
Zwingli  said  he  took  no  account  of  it  :  ^'' Dann  es  nit  ein  biblish  Buck  ist"  [IVer/ce,  ii.  160). 
Tyndale  wrote  no  preface  to  the  Apocalypse.  Luther  calls  it  "  a  dumb  prophecy."  He  says, 
"  Mein  Ceist  kanfi  sick,  in  das  Buck  nickt  stricken.,  und  ist  rnir  Ursack  getnig  dass  ich 
sein  Jiickt  kock  achte  dass  Ckristus  da?-innen  iveder  gelekrt  nack  erknnnt  ivird."  Gra- 
vina  says,  "  J\fiki  tota  Apocalypsis  valde  obscura  vidctur,  et  talis  ciijus  explicatio  citra 
periculunt  vix  qucat  tentari."  Quite  recent  commentators  have  held  similar  language. 
"  liifi  Buck  V071  dein  man  ganze  Caf>itcl  fiack  Ausdruckujig  von  eitiigen  Tropfen  sa/t 
als  leere  Sckalen  btiscite-lcgen  muss'"  (IJe  Wette).  "  No  book  of  the  New  Testament  has 
so  defied  all  attempts  to  setde  its  interpretation"  (Bloomfield).  "  I  cannot  pretend  to  explain 
the  book  ;  I  do  not  understand  it"  (Adam  Clarke).  "No  solution  has  ever  been  given  of  this 
part  of  the  prophecy"  (Alford).  '•^  Deutero-kanoniscke  Dignitdt  komint  ikr  zu,  aber  nicat 
iveniger"  (DUsterdieck). 


494  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

every  successive  interpreter  has  a  new  scheme  for  its  elucida- 
tion— if  it  were  a  book  in  which  only  Protestants  could  take 
delight  because  it  is  supposed  to  express  the  intensest  spirit  of 
denunciation  against  the  errors  of  a  Church  which,  whatever 
may  be  its  errors,  is  still  a  sister  Church — then  it  might  be 
excusable  if  the  spirits  of  those  who  seek  peace  and  ensue  it, 
and  who  look  on  brotherly  love  between  Christians  as  the 
crown  of  virtue  and  the  test  of  true  religion,  should  turn  away 
from  the  book  with  a  sense  of  perplexity  and  weariness.  They 
could  never  gain  much  comfort  and  edification  from  any 
pulpit  in  which 

"A  loud-tongued  pulpiteer, 
Not  preaching  simple  Christ  to  simple  men, 
Announced  the  coming  doom,  and  fulminated 
Against  the  scarlet  woman  and  her  creed. 
For  sidewise  up  he  flung  his  arms,  and  shrieked 
'  Thus,  thus  with  violence,'  as  though  he  held 
The  Apocalyptic  millstone,  and  himself 
Were  that  great  Angel — '  thus  v/ith  violence 
Shall  Babylon  be  thrown  into  the  sea. 
Then  comes  the  end.'  "  ^ 

There  are  few  of  us  who  would  find  much  music  in  such 
•'loud-tongued  anti-Babylonianisms"  as  these.  The  blind 
fumes  of  party  hatred  can  only  distract  and  lead  astray.  The 
spirit  of  the  Inquisition,  even  when  it  is  found  in  Protestants, 
is  essentially  anti-Christian.  It  is  a  scorpion-locust  out  of  the 
abyss.  But  when  we  put  ourselves  in  the  position  of  the  Seer, 
and  grasp  the  clues  to  his  meaning  which  he  has  himself  fur- 
nished— when  we  accept  his  own  assurance  that  he  is  mainly 
dealing  with  events  which  were  on  the  immediate  horizon — 
v/hen,  lastly,  we  discount  the  Oriental  hyperboles  which,  in  fact, 
cease  to  be  hyperbolical  if  they  be  understood  in  their  normal 
usage,  then  for  the  first  time  we  begin  to  understand  the  Apo- 
calypse in  all  its  passion  and  grandeur,  as  it  was  understood 
by  those  for  whom  it  was  written.  We  no  longer  expect  to 
find  in  it  the  Saracen  conquests,  or  the  Waldenses,  or  the 
French  Revolution,  or  "the  rise  of  Tractarianism."  We  are 
soothed  by  its  heavenly  consolations  and  inspired  by  its  in- 
extinguishable hopes.  When  read  in  the  light  of  events  then 
contemporary,  it  rolls  with  all  its  thunder  and  burns  with  all 
its  fires.  Over  the  guilt  of  Jerusalem,  over  the  guilt  of  Rome, 
it  hurls  the  prophecy  of  inevitable  doom.  Around  the  dia- 
dem of  Nero  and  the  hydra-heads  of  Paganism  in  its  hour  of 


'Tennyson  (S^a  Drtams).  "  Totutti  hunc  librum  .  .  .  s/>fctare  prnecif>ue  nd  tfescri- 
bfndamtyrnuutd.tn  sftrttunletn  Romatii />af>atui  ct  totius  clcricjus"  (Nic.  Collado,  ap. 
DUstcrdicck,  p.  48). 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  AFOCALYPSE.    495 

tyranny  and  triumph  it  flashes  the  sure  wrath  of  heaven/ 
But,  Hke  all  prophecy,  it  has  "springing  and  germinal  develop- 
ments." It  is  the  defiance  uttered  by  true  Christianity  for  all 
time  against  the  tortures,  the  legions,  the  amphitheatres,  the 
fagots,  the  prisons,  the  thumbscrews,  the  falsehoods,  the  in- 
quisitions of  that  demoniac  spirit  of  persecuting  intolerance, 
which,  whether  it  uses  the  asp-poison  of  slander  or  the  sword 
of  murder,  is  never  so  irreligious  as  when  it  vaunts  its  zeal  for 
God.  Though  he  wrote  in  the  hour  of  seeming  ruin,  such  is" 
the  passionate  intensity  with  which  the  Seer  pours  forth  the 
language  of  victory,  that  it  seems  as  though  the  hand  which 
he  has  dipped  in  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  flames  like  a  torch 
as  he  uplifts  it  in  appeal  to  the  avenging  heavens.  And  since 
the  truths  which  he  utters  become  needful  at  the  recurrence 
of  every  similar  crisis — and  most  of  all  when  the  execrable 
weapons  of  tyranny  are  grasped  by  the  reckless  hands  of  sec- 
tarian bitterness — the  Apocalypse  has  ever  been  dearest  to 
God's  true  saints  at  the  hour  of  their  deepest  trials.  It  ceases 
then  to  be  a  great  silent  sphinx,  reading  its  eternal  riddle  at 
the  gate  of  Scripture,  and  devouring  those  who  fail  to  answer 
it;  it  becomes  a  series  of  glorious  pictures,  wherein  "are  set 
forth  the  rise,  the  visible  existence,  and  the  general  future  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  in  figures  and  similitudes  of  His  First 
Coming,  to  terrify  and  to  console."^ 

There  have  been  three  great  schools  of  Apocalyptic  inter- 
pretation:— I.  The  Praeterists,  who  regard  the  book  as  having 
been  mainly  fulfilled.  2.  The  Futurists,  who  refer  it  to  events 
which  are  still  wholly  future.  3.  The  Continuous-Historical 
Interpreters,  who  see  in  it  an  outline  of  Christian  history  from 
the  days  of  St.  John  down  to  the  End  of  all  things.  The 
second  of  these  schools — the  Futurists — has  always  been  nu- 
merically small,  and  at  present  may  be  said  to  be  non-existent. 
The  school  of  Historical  Interpreters  was  founded  by  the 
Abbot  Joachim  early  in  the  13th  century,  and  was  specially 
flourishing   in  the   first  fifty  years  of  the  present  century.^ 

1  The  use  of  the  word  "  diadem"  of  the  Roman  Emperor  in  this  book  is  made  much  of  by 
the  commentators,  who  try  to  overthrow  the  sure  results  of  recent  exegesis.  They  urge  that 
Caligula  alone  of  the  Caesars  ever  attempted  to  wear  a  diadem,  as  distinguished  from  a  crown 
or  wreath  ;  that  Julius  Csesar  refused  a  diadem  ;  that  Sulpicius  Severus  is  mistaken  when  he 
describes  Vespasian  as  wearing  one  ;  and  that  the  first  Emperor  who  boldly  assumed  this 
badge  of  Oriental  autocracy — a  purple  silken  fillet,  embroidered  with  pearls — was  Diocletian. 
Meanwhile  this  imposing  array  of  arguments  crumbles  at  a  touch.  When  Antony  oftered  the 
diadem  to  Julius,  he  betrayed  the  secret  as  to  the  real  character  of  Imperial  power.  Orientals 
in  the  provinces  both  thought  and  spoke  of  the  Emperors  as  "  Kings,"  though  such  a  name 
would  have  horrified  the  Romans  ;  but  Oriental  kings  wore  diadems,  and  thcretore  the  Oriental 
symbol  of  the  Roman  Emperor  was  the  diadem.  2  Herder. 

'  There  are  two  schools  of  the  interpreters  who  make  the  Apocalypse  a  p-ophecy  of  all 
Christian  history.     The  school  of  Bengcl,  Vitringa,  Elliott,  etc.,  make  it  mainly  a  history  of 


496  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

The  views  of  the  Praeterists  have  been  adopted,  with  various 
shades  of  modification,  by  Grotius,  Hammond,  Le  Clerc,  Bos- 
suet,  Eichhorn,  Hug,  Wetstein,  Ewald,  Herder,  Zullig,  Bleek, 
l)e  Wette,  Liicke,  Moses  Stuart,  Davidson,  Volkmar,  Kren- 
kel,  Diisterdieck,  Renan,  and  almost  the  whole  school  of 
modern  German  critics  and  interpreters.  It  has  been  usual 
to  say  that  the  Spanish  Jesuit  Alcasar,  in  his  Vestigatio  arcani 
snisi/s /// A/>pa7/y}si  (1614),  was  the  founder  of  the  Proeterist 
*School,  and  it  certainly  seems  as  if  to  him  must  be  assigned 
the  credit  of  having  first  clearly  enunciated  the  natural  view 
that  the  Apocalypse,  like  all  other  known  Apocalypses  of  the 
time,  describes  events  nearly  contemporaneous,  and  is  meant 
to  shadow  forth  the  triumph  of  the  Church  in  the  struggle 
first  with  Judaism  and  then  with  Heathendom.  But  to  me  it 
seems  that  the  founder  of  the  Praeterist  School  is  none  other 
than  St.  John  himself.  For  he  records  the  Christ  as  saying 
to  Mm  when  he  was  in  the  Spirit,  "Write  the  things  .which 
thou  sawest,  and  the  things  which  are,  and  the  things 
which  are  about  to  happen  (a  /AcAXet  yiv^dOai)  after  these  things. " 
No  language  surely  could  more  clearly  define  the  bearing  of 
the  Apocalypse.  It  is  meant  to  describe  the  contemporary 
state  of  things  in  the  Church  and  the  world,  and  the  events 
which  were  to  follow  in  immediate  sequence.  If  the  Histori- 
cal School  can  strain  the  latter  words  into  an  indication  that 
we  are  (contrary  to  all  analogy)  to  have  a  symbolic  and  unin- 
telligible sketch  of  many  centuries,  the  Praeterist  School  may 
at  any  rate  apply  these  words,  a  eiVti/, ."the  things  .which 
ARE,."  to  vindicate  the  application  of  a  large  part  of  the  Apo- 
calypse to  events  nearly  contemporary,  while  they  also  give 
the  natural  meaning  to  the  subsequent  clause  by  understand- 
ing it  of  events  which  were  then  on  the  horizon.  The  Seer 
emphatically  says  that  the  future  events  which  he  has  to  fore- 
shadow will  occur  speedily  (iv  mx^i,)'  and  the  recurrent  burden 
of  his  whole  book  is  the  nearness  of  the  Advent  (6  /cat^oo?  eyyik). 
Language  is  simply  meaningless  if  it  is  to  be  so  manipulated 
by  every  successive  commentator  as  to  make  the  words 
"speedily"   and   "near"   imply  any  number  of  centuries  of 

'rl-^^^'''^^';  . '^'JVl^'^'"  ^^^^°^  regards  it  more  gener.-illy,  and  less  specifically,  as  an  outline 
ot  Kpochs  nUhe  History  of  M,*  7,.or/,i  and  the  great  forces  which  shape  it  into  a  Kingdom  of 
t.od       lo  tins  Latter  school  l«:lon<?  Hcngstenberg,  Ki)rard,  Aubcrlen,  etc. 

Lump.   Taxu  (Rev.  n.  5,  16:  iii.  ti  ;  xi.  14  ;   xxii.  20).      It  is  curious  to  .see  with  what 
extraor.lin.iry  ease  commentators  explain   the  perfc.tly  simple   and   ambiguous  express! 


SSIOll 


*pcc.bly  {t^  '■*>(",  •"  "'^"•'^"  •''"y  '"-■".s^tl'  '>f  time  which  they  may  choose  to  demand.  'Jm^.- 
woru  „tt>unUatdy,  m  .Malt.  xxiv.  29.  has  been  subject  to  similar  handlin-.  in  which  indeed 
all  Scripiurc  exegesis  alxjunds.  "J  he  failure  to  see  that  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of 
the  .Mo»a.c  Dispensation  was  a  "  Second  Advent"-and  the  Second  Advent  contemplated  in 
many  of  the  New  IcsUmcnt  prophecies— has  led  to  a  multitude  of  errors. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.    497 

delay.  The  Praeterist  method  of  interpretation  does  not,  how- 
ever, interfere  with  that  view  of  prophecy  which  was  so  well 
defined  by  Dr.  Arnold.  This  is  the  view  of  those  who  have 
been  called  the  "spiritual"  interpreters.  It  admits  of  the  an- 
alogical application  of  prophecy  to  conditions  which,  in  the 
cycles  of  history,  bear  a  close  resemblance  to  each  other.  It 
applies  to  all  times  the  principles  originally  laid  down  with  re- 
ference to  events  which  were  being  then  enacted,  and  starts 
with  the  axiom  of  Bacon,  that  divine  prophecies  have  steps 
and  grades  of  fulfilment  through  divers  ages.'  All  that  is 
really  valuable  in  the  works  of  the  Historical  Interpreters  may 
thus  be  retained.  No  importance  can  be  attached  to  their 
limitation  of  particular  symbols,  but  the  better  part  of  their 
labours  may  be  accepted  as  an  illustration  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  Apocalyptic  symbols  convey  moral  lessons  which 
are  applicable  to  the  conditions  of  later  times. 

But,  apart  from  St.  John's  own  words,  it  cannot  be  con- 
ceded that  the  central  conception  of  the  Praeterist  exegesis  is 
a  mere  novelty  of  the  17th  century.  On  the  contrary,  we  cna 
trace  from  very  early  days  the  application  of  various  visions 
to  the  early  emperors  of  Pagan  Rome.  Thus  Justin  Martyr 
believed  that  the  Antichrist  would  be  a  person  who  was  closs 
at  hand,  and  who  would  reign  three  and  a  half  years. ^  Ire- 
naeus  also  thought  that  Antichrist,  as  foreshadowed  by  the 
Wild  Beast,  would  be  a  man;  and  that  ''the  number  of  the 
Beast"  represented  Lateinos,  "a  Latin.  "^  Hippolytus  com- 
pares the  action  of  the  False  Prophet  giving  life  to  the  Beast's 
image,  to  Augustus  inspiring  fresh  force  into  the  Roman 
Empire.*  Later  on,  I  shall  furnish  abundant  evidence  that  a 
tradition  of  the  ancient  Church  identified  Nero  with  the  An- 
tichrist, and  expected  his  literal  return,  just  as  the  Jews  ex- 
pected the  literal  return  of  the  Prophet  Elijah.  St.  Victori- 
nus  (about  a.d.  303)  counts  the  five  dead  emperors  from  Galba, 
and  supposes  that,  after  Nerva,  the  Beast  (whom  he  identifies 
with  Nero)  will  be  recalled  to  life.^  St.  Augustine  mentions 
a  similar  opinion.''  The  Pseudo-Prochorus,  writing  on  Rev 
xvii.  10,  says  that  the  "one  head  which  is''  is  meant  for 
Domitian.  Bishop  Andreas,  in  the  fifth  century,  applies  Rev. 
vi.  12  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  considers  that  Anti- 
christ will  be  "as  a  king  of  the  Romans."     Bishop  Arethas, 


*  De  Augment.  Scietit.  ii.  ii.  2  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  p.  250. 
3  Iren.  finer,  v.  25.                                                    *  De  Antichristo,  p.  6. 

*  "  Bestia  de  septem  est  quoniam  ante  ipsos  reges  Nero  regnavit." 
"  De  Civ.  Dei,  xx.  19. 

32 


498  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

on  Rev.  vii.,  implies  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written  before 
the  Jewish  War.  The  fragments  of  ancient  comment  which 
we  possess  cannot  be  said  to  have  much  intrinsic  value;  but 
such  as  they  are  they  suffice  to  prove  that  the  tendency  of 
modern  exegesis  approaches  quite  as  nearly  to  the  earliest 
traditicms  as  that  of  the  Historic  School.  It  is  a  specially  im- 
portant fact  that  St.  Augustine,  as  well  as  many  others,  recog- 
nised the  partially  retrogressive  and  iterative  character  of  the 
later  visions,  and  thereby  sanctioned  one  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tant principles  of  modern  interpretation.^  The  internal  evi- 
dence that  the  book  was  written  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
has  satisfied  not  only  many  Christian  commentators,  who  are 
invidiously  stigmatised  as  "rationalistic,"  but  even  such 
writers  as  Wetstein,  Liicke,  Neander,  Stier,  Auberlen,  Ewald- 
Bleek,  Gebhardt,  Immer,  Davidson,  Dusterdieck,  Moses 
Stuart,  F.  D.  Maurice,  the  author  of  "The  Parousia,"  Dean 
Plumptre,  the  authors  of  the  Protestanieji-Bibel,  and  multi- 
tudes of  others  no  less  entitled  to  the  respect  of  all  Christians. 

If,  however,  the  reader  still  looks  with  prejudice  and  sus- 
picion on  the  only  school  of  Apocalyptic  exegesis  which  unites 
the  suffrages  of  the  most  learned  recent  commentators  in  Get- 
many,  France,  and  England,  I  hardly  know  where  he  is  to 
turn.  The  reason  why  the  early  date  and  mainly  contempo- 
rary explanation  of  the  book  is  daily  winning  fresh  adherents 
among  unbiassed  thinkers  of  every  Church  and  school,  is 
partly  because  it  rests  on  so  simple  and  secure  a  basis,  and 
partly  because  no  other  can  compete  with  it.  It  is  indeed  the 
only  system  which  is  built  on  the  plain  and  repeated  state- 
ments and  indications  of  the  Seer  himself,  and  the  correspond- 
ing events  are  so  closely  accordant  with  the  symbols  as  to 
make  it  certain  that  this  scheme  of  interpretation  is  the  only 
one  that  can  survive.  A  few  specimens  may  suffice  to  show 
how  completely  other  systems  float  in  the  air. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  student  has  found  out  that  in  viii. 
i.^  the  true  reading  is  **a  single  eagle,"  not  an  angel;  but, 
whether  eagle  or  angel,  he  wants  to  know  what  the  symbol 
means.  He  turns  to  the  commentators,  and  finds  that  it  is 
explained  to  be  the  Holy  Spirit  (Victorinus);  or  Pope  Gregory 
the  (Jreat  ^Elliott;;  or  St.  John  himself  (De  Lyra);  or  St.  Paul 
(Zeger,;  or  Christ  himself  (Wordsworth).  The  Prseterists 
mostly  take  it  to  be  simply  an  eagle,  as  the  Scriptural  type  of 
carnage— the  figure  being  suggested  not  by  the  resemblance 

'  Id.  ii>.  17. 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.   499 

of  the  word  "woe!"  {^'ouai')  to  the  eagle's  screams,  but  by 
the  use  of  the  same  symbol  for  the  same  purpose  by  our  Lord 
in  His  discourse  about  the  things  to  come.* 

But  this  is  nothing!  The  student  wishes  to  learn  what  is 
meant  by  the  star  fallen  from  heaven,  in  ix.  i.  The  Histori- 
cal school  will  leave  him  to  choose  between  an  evil  spirit  (Al- 
ford);  a  Christian  heretic  (Wordsworth);  the  Emperor  Valens 
(De  Lyra);  Mohammed  (Elliott);  and,  among  others.  Napo- 
leon (Hengstenberg)! 

The  confusion  deepens  as  we  advance.  The  locusts  are 
"heretics"  (Bede);  or  Goths  (Vitringa);  or  Vandals  (Aureo- 
lus);  or  Saracens  (Mede);  orJ:he  mendicant  orders  (Brightman); 
or  the  Jesuits  (Scherzer);  or  Protestants  (Bellarmine). 

The  same  endless  and  aimless  diversity  reigns  throughout 
the  entire  works  of  the  Historical  interpreters;  none  of  them 
seems  to  satisfy  any  one  but  himself.  The  elaborate  anti- 
papal  interpretation  of  Elliott — of  which  (to  show  that  I  am 
far  from  prejudiced)  I  may  mention,  in  passing,  that  I  made 
a  careful  study  and  a  full  abstract  when  I  was  seventeen  years 
old — is  all  but  forgotten.  Mr.  Faber  admits  that  there  is  not 
the  least  agreement  as  to  the  first  four  trumpets  among  writers 
of  his  school,  and  he  rightly  says  that  "so  curious  a  circum- 
stance may  well  be  deemed  the  opprobrium  of  Apocalyptic 
interpretation,  and  may  naturally  lead  us  to  suspect  that  the 
true  key  to  the  distinct  application  of  the  first  four  trumpets 
has  never  yet  been  found." 

Not  that  this  school  leave  us  any  better  off  when  we  come 
to  the  seven  thunders.  They  are  seven  unknown  oracles 
(Mede);  or  events  (Ebrard);  or  the  seven  crusades  ^Vitringa;; 
or  the  seven  Protestant  kingdoms  (Dunbar);  or  the  Papal 
Bull  against  Luther  (Elliott). 

The  two  wings  of  the  great  eagle  in  xii.  14  are  the  two 
Testaments  (Wordsworth);  or  the  eastern  and  western  divisions 
of  the  empire  (Mede,  Auberlen);  or  the  Emperor  Theodosius 
(Elliott). 

The  number  of  the  Beast — which  may  be  now  regarded  as 
certainly  intended  to  stand  for  Nero — has  been  made  to  serve 
for  Genseric,  Benedict,  Trajan,  Paul  V.,  Calvin,  Luther, 
Mohammed,  Napoleon — not  to  mention  a  host  of  other  inter- 
pretations which  no  one  has  ever  accepted  except  their  au- 
thors.^ 

1  Matt.  xxiv.  28. 

2  The  majority  of  guesses  which  have  the  least  seriousness  in  them  point  to  Rome,  the 
Roman  Empire,  or  the  Roman  Emperor. 


500  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  further  instances.  They  might 
be  multiplied  almost  indefinitely,  but  their  viultipUcity  is  not  so 
decisive  of  the  futility  of  the  principles  on  which  they  are 
selected,  as  is  the  diversity  of  results  which  are  wider  than  the 
poles  asunder.  What  are  we  to  say  of  methods  which  leave 
us  to  choose  between  the  ai^plicability  of  a  symbol  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  or  to  Pope  Ciregory,  to  the  Two  Testaments  or  to  the 
Emperor  Theodosius.^  Anyone,  on  the  other  hand,  who  ac- 
cepts the  Prosterist  system  finds  a  wide  and  increasing  con- 
sensus among  competent  enquirers  of  all  nations,  and  can  see 
an  explanation  of  the  book  which  is  simple,  natural,  and  noble 
— one  which  closely  follows  its  o\^n  indications,  and  accords 
with  those  to  be  found  throughout  the  New  Testament.  He 
sees  that  events,  mainly  contemporary,  provide  an  interpreta- 
tion clear  in  its  outlines,  though  necessarily  uncertain  in  minor 
details.  If  he  takes  the  view  of  the  Spiritualists,  he  may  at 
his  pleasure  m^ke  the  symbols  mean  anything  in  general  and 
nothing  in  particular.  If  he  is  of  the  Historical  School  he 
must  let  the  currents  of  Gieseler  or  Gibbon  sweep  him  hither 
and  thither  at  the  will  of  the  particular  commentator  in  whom 
he  for  the  time  may  chance  to  confide.  But  if  he  follows  the 
guidance  of  a  more  reasonable  exegesis,  he  may  advance  with 
a  sure  step  along  a  path  which  becomes  clearer  with  every 
fresh  discovery. 

But  I  cannot  leave  this  subject  of  Apocalyptic  interpreta- 
tion without  repeating  my  conviction,  that  the  essential  sacred- 
ness  and  preciousness  of  the  book  lies  deeper  than  the  primary 
or  secondary  interpretations  of  its  separate  visions.  Whatever 
system  of  e.xegesis  we  adopt — whether  we  suppose  that  St. 
John  was  indicating  to  the  Churches  of  Asia  the  influence  of 
Mohammed,  Hildebrand,  and  Luther  centuries  later — whether 
he  was  foreshadowing  events  of  which  they  could  not  have  the 
remotest  comprehension,  or  events  with  which  they  were  im- 
mediately and  terribly  concerned — he  is,  at  any  rate,  dealing 
on  the  one  hand  with  awful  warnings,  and  on  the  other  with 
exceeding  great  and  precious  promises.  His  teaching  is 
needful  for  our  education  in  the  ways  of  God.  It  will  be  well 
for  every  Christian  to  take  it  deeply  to  heart.  Amid  endless 
diversities,  here  at  any  rate  is  a  point  respecting  which  all  true 
Christians  may  be  cordially  agreed. 

It  is. admitted  by  every  unbiassed  critic  that  Apocalyptic 
literature  is  inferior  in  form  to  the  Prophetic.  The  Jews 
themselves  have  marked  their  sense  of  this  by  excluding  the 
Book   uf   Daniel   from  the  i)rophetic   canons,  and   placing   it 


GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE.    5OI 

amon<^  the  Hagiographa.  Apocalypses  belong,  as  a  rule,  to 
later  ages  and  less  vived  inspiration.  Why  then,  it  may  be 
asked,  did  St.  John  choose  this  form  of  utterance?  The  an- 
swer is  simple.  It  was,  first,  because  it  was  in  this  form  that 
his  inspiration  came  to  him;  it  was  in  this  form  that  his 
thoughts  naturally  clothed  themselves.  It  was,  next,  because 
the  Apocalypse  was  the  favourite  form  of  the  prophetico-poetic 
literature  of  this  epoch,  with  which  many  instances  had  made 
his  readers  familiar.  But  lastly,  and  perhaps  chiefly,  it  was 
from  the  dangers  of  the  time.  An  Apocalypse,  by  the  very 
meaning  of  the  term,  implies  a  book  which  is  more  or  less 
cryptographic  in  its  contents.  Hence  in  every  Apocalypse — 
in  the  Books  of  Esdras,  Enoch,  and  Baruch,  no  less  than  in 
St.  John — there  are  for  us  some  necessary  difficulties  in  the 
details  of  interpretation  which  perhaps  did  not  exist  for  con- 
temporary readers.  But  if  anything  were  obscure  to  them, 
this  was  more  than  compensated  by  the  resultant  safety.  No 
danger  incurred  by  the  early  Christians  was  greater  than  that 
caused  by  the  universal  prevalence  of  political  spies.  If  one 
of  these  wretches  got  possession  of  any  Christian  writing 
which  could  be  construed  into  an  attack  or  a  reflexion  upon 
their  terrible  persecutors,  hundreds  might  be  involved  in  in- 
discriminate punishment  on  a  charge  of  high  treason  [laesa 
7najestas)y  which  was  then  the  most  formidable  engine  of  des- 
potic power.  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Thessalonians  even  so 
early  as  a.d.  52,  had  found  it  necessary  to  speak  of  the  Roman 
Empire  and  of  the  Emperors  Claudius  or  Nero  in  terms  of 
studied  enigma.*  St.  Peter,  making  a  casual  allusion  to  Rome, 
had  been  obliged  to  veil  it  under  the  mystic  name  of  Babylon.' 
Even  Josephus  has  to  break  off  his  explanation  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  with  mysterious  suddenness,  rather  than  indicate 
that  the  fate  of  the  Roman  Empire  was  there  foreshadowed. 
Concealed  methods  of  allusion  are,  for  similar  reasons,  again 
and  again  adopted  in  the  Talmud.  St.  John  saw  in  Nero  a 
realisation  of  Antichrist;  but  it  would  have  been  fatal  to  whole 
communities,  perhaps  to  the  entire  Church,  if  he  had  openly 
committed  to  waiting  either  the  indication  of  Nero's  character 
or  the  prophecy  of  his  doom.  He  could  only  do  this  in  the  guise 
of  Scriptural  and  prophetic  symbols,  which  would  look  like 
meaningless  rhapsodies  to  any  Gentile  reader,  but  of  which,  as 
he  was  well  aware,  the  secret  significance  was  in  the  hands  of 
those  for  whom  alone  his  revelation  was  intended.     It  may  be 


2  Thess.  ii.  3-12.  2  i  Pet,  v.  13. 


502  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

laid  down  as  a  rule,  to  which  there  is  no  exception,  that  the 
commentator  who  approaches  the  Apocalypse  without  the 
fullest  recognition  of  the  fact  that  in  its  tone  and  in  its  sym- 
bols it  bears  a  very  close  analogy  to  a  multitude  of  other  Apo- 
calyptic books,  both  Jewish  and  Christian,  is  sure  to  go  utterly 
astray.  But  if  he  knows  the  symbols  and  their  significance, 
not  only  from  the  Old  Testament  but  also  from  seeing  how 
the  imagery  of  the  Old  Testament  was  applied  in  the  first  cen- 
tury to  contemporary  events,  he  will  be  prepared  to  see  that 
to  the  original  readers  of  the  Apocalypse,  at  any  rate,  the 
book  had  and  could  have  but  one  meaning,  and  that  the  in- 
tended meaning  is  still  partially  discoverable  by  those  who  do 
not  read  its  visions  through  the  ecclesiastical  veil  Of  unnatural 
and  fantastic  hypotheses. 


CHAPTER   XXVIII. 


THE    APOCALYPSE. 


'•  Apocalypsis  Johannis  tot  habet  sacramenta  quot  verba.     Parum  dLxi  pro  merito  vo!umi- 
nis.     Laus  oinnis  inferior  est." — Jkr.  ad  Paulin. 

In  the  superscription  of  the  Apocalypse  found  in  some  of  the 
cursive  manuscripts,  St.  John  is  called  by  the  title  of  "the 
Theologian, ' '  or,  as  it  is  rendered  in  our  version,  '  'the  Divine. ' ' 
]t  was  a  title  borne  by  the  highest  order  of  priests  in  the 
Temjile  of  the  Ephesian  Artemis,  as  appears  from  inscriptions 
discovered  by  Mr.  Wood  at  Ephesus.  It  is,  however,  unlikely 
that  St.  John  bore  the  title  in  his  own  day,  or  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  contrast  him  with  the  local  and  pagan  hierarchy. 
It  was  more  probably  due  to  the  grandeur  of  his  witness  to 
Christ  as  the  Divine  Logos.  It  is  remarkable  that  only  one 
great  Christian  writer  has  shared  it  with  him — the  large- 
hearted  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  The  true  Theology  is  the 
glorious  mother  of  all  the  sciences,  and  differs  infmitely  from 
the  narrow  and  technical  pedantry  which  has  in  modern  times 
loo  often  usurped  the  exclusive  name.  It  would  have  been 
well  for  the  world  if  it  could  have  rescued  the  term  from  the 
degradation  to  which  it  has  been  subjected  by  Pharisaism  and 
self-assertion.  Theology  would  have  received  the  honour  of 
all  mankind  if  it  had  not  so  often  mistaken  verbal  minutiae  for 
divine  essentials,  if  its  self-styled  votaries  had  caught  some- 
thing of  the  hn-e  and  something  of  the  loftiness  of  the  beloved 
I  )isciple  of  Galilee  and  the  eloquent   Patriarch  of  Constanti- 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  503 


SECTION  I. 

THE    LETTERS    TO   THE    SEVEN    CHURCHES. 

To  write  a  full  commentary  upon  the  Apocalypse,  or  to 
enter  into  the  numerous  questions  to  which  it  gives  rise,  would 
be  impossible  in  the  space  at  my  disposal.  All  that  I  can 
hope  to  do  is  to  give  a  rapid  outline  of  its  contents,  and,  so 
far  as  ascertainable,  of  its  probable  meaning  in  those  parts  of 
its  symbolism  which  are  capable  of  explanation,  or  which  do 
not  at  once  explain  themselves. 

After  the  Prologue,'  the  main  sections  of  the  book  are 
arranged  in  accordance  with  the  number  Seven,  which  is  the 
most  prominent  among  the  symbolic  numbers  with  which  the 
book  is  filled.     Thus  we  have: — 

Prologue,  i.  i — 8. 

1,  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia,  i.  9 — iii.  22. 

2.  The  Seven  Seals,  iv. — vii. 

3-  The  Seven  Trumpets,  viii. — xi. 

4.  The  Seven  Mystic  Figures,  xii. — xiv." 

5.  The  Seven  Vials,  xv. — xvi. 

6.  The  Doom  of  the  Foes  of  Christ,  xvii. — xx. 

7.  The  Blessed  Consummation,  xxi. — xxii.  7. 
The  Epilogue,  xxii.  8 — 21.'' 

The  Seven  Churches  addressed  in  the  person  of  their 
Angels*  are: — 

1  The  Vision  takes  place  on  "the  Lord's  Day,"  which  probably  means  neither  "Easier 
Day,"  nor  the  '*  Day  of  Judgment,"  but  "Sunday."  It  is  the  earliest  use  of  the  expression, 
but  furnishes  no  proof  at  all  of  the  later  date  assigned  to  the  Apocalypse. 

-  I  borrow  this  ingenious  suggestion  from  the  author  of  the  "  Parousta,''^  a  book  full  of  sug- 
gestiveness,  although  I  disagree  with  the  author  in  its  limitation  of  the  Apocalyptic  horizon 
mainly  to  Jerusalem.  The  seven  Mystic  Figures  are  :  (i)  The  Sun-clothed  Woman  ;  (2)  The 
Red  Dragon  ;  (3)  The  Man-child:  (4)  The  First  Wild  Beast  from  the  Sea  ;  (5)  The  Second 
Wild  Beast  from  the  Lund  ;  (6)  The  Lamb  on  Mount  Sion  ;  {7),'l"he  Son  of  Man  on  the  Cloud. 

3  Ewald  divides  the  book  into  three  main  sections  of  seven  members  each  : — The  Seven 
Seals  (iv.-vii.)  ;  the  Seven  Trumpets  (viii.-xi.  14)  ;  the  Seven  Vials,  with  the  group  of  asso- 
ciated Visions  (xi.  15-xxii.  3),  which  are  divided  into  three  members  (xi.  rs-xiv.  20  ;  xv.-.vviii.; 
xix.-xxii.  5).  He  thinks  that  die  book  has  an  Introduction  in  four  parts  ;  Preface  and  Dedi- 
cation in  seven  parts  (ii.,  iii,)  ;  and  a  Conclusion  in  three  parts.  Volkmar's  division  is  into 
two  main  parts  : — (I.)  The  Announcement  of  the  Judgment  (i.-ix.)  ;  (II. )  The  Achievement 
of  the  Judgment  (x.-.xiv.).  The  subordinate  parts  are: — Prologue  (i.  1-7);  (i)  First  Vision 
(i.  8-iii".);  (2)  Second  Vision,  the  Seals  (iv.-vii.)  ;  (3)  Third  Vision,  the  loud  Declaration  of 
God's  Judgment  (viii.,  ix.) ;  (4)  Fourth  Vision,  the  Introductory  Judgment  (x.-xiv.) :  (5)  Fifth 
Vision,  Avenging  Justice  (xv.,  xvi.)  ;  (6)  Sixth  Vision,  the  overtlirow  of  the  World-Power,  or 
Rome  (xvii.,  xviii.);  (7)  Seventh  Vision,  the  Completion  of  the  Judgment  (xix.-xxi.)  ;  Epi- 
logue,— Whatever  division  of  the  book  be  adopted,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  it  is  constructed 
in  a  very  artificial  manner,  and  dominated  by  the  numbers  seven,  three,  and  four.  Se\en  is 
the  mystic  number  of  peace,  expiation,  and  the  covenant  between  God  and  man.  Three  is  the 
signature  of  the  Deity.  Four  is  the  number  of  the  world  and  created  things.  Ten  =  i  +  2  -f- 
3+4,  indicates  completeness.  On  the  symbolism  of  numbers,  see  Bahr,  Symbolik.  i.  187, 
etc.     Herzog,  Real.  Eucycl.  s.  %>.  Zahlen  ;   Lange,  Revelations,  Introd.  §  6,  etc. 

^  The  Angels  cannot  be  the  Kishops,  for  even  if  the  Domitianic  date  of  the  Apocalj'pse  be 
accepted,  episcopacy  had  not  even  then  attained  to  such  proportions,  and  if  the  Ancients  had 
supposed  the  Bishops  to  be  meant,  they  would  have  adopted  this  title  in  speaking  of  them. 


$04  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Ephesus,  the  Church  faithful  as  yet,  but  waxing  cold. 

Smyrna,  the  Church  faithful  amid  Jewish  persecutions. 

Pkrgamum,  the  Church  faithful  amid  heathen  persecutions, 
but  liable  to  swerve  into  Antinomianism. 

Thyatira,  the  Church  faithful  as  yet,  but  acquiescent 
under  Antinomian  seductions. 

Sardis,  the  Church  slumbering,  but  not  past  awakenment. 

Philadelphia,  the  Church  faithful  and  militant. 

Laodicea,  the  Church  unfaithful,  proud,  lukewarm,  and 
luxurious.* 

The  letters  to  these  Seven  Churches  are  normally  seven- 
fold, consisting  of — I.  The  address;  2.  The  title  of  the  Divine 
Speaker;  3.  The  encomium;  4.  The  reproof;  5.  The  warn- 
ing; 6.  The  promise  to  him  that  overcometh;  7.  The  solemn 
appeal  to  attention.  These  elements  are,  however,  freely 
modified.  Two  Churches — Smyrna  and  Philadelphia — receive 
unmitigated  praise.  Two — Sardis  and  Laodicea — are  ad- 
dressed in  terms  of  unmitigated  reproof.  To  the  three  others 
— Ephesus,  Pergamum,  and  Thyatira — is  awarded  a  mixture 
of  praise  and  blame. 

The  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  is  praised  for  "hav- 
ing tried  them  which  called  themselves  Apostles,  and  they  are 
not,'''  and  having  found  them  false,"  and  also  for  hating  the 
works  of  the  Nicolaitans."  The  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna 
is  praised  for  faithfulness  amid  '  'the  reviling  of  them  which 
say  they  are  Jews  and  are  not,  but  are  a  synagogue  of  Satan." 
The  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Pergamum  is  blamed  because  he 
has  there  "some  who  hold  the  teaching  of  the  Nicolaitans, 
and  the  teaching  of  Balaam,  who  taught  Balak  to  cast  a  stum- 
bling-block before  the  children  of  Israel,  to  eat  things  offered 
to  idols,  and  to  commit  fornication."  The  Angel  of  the  Church 
of  Thyatira  is  blamed  for  "suffering  the  woman  Jezebel  ^  to 

Probably  the  title  implies  the  Genius  of  the  Church,  ideally  represented  as  a  Responsible 
Head,  or  Guardian  of  it ;  just  as  Daniel  idealises  the  Angels  of  the  nations  (Dan.  x.  20,  21 ; 
xii.  i). 

»  The  number  seven  is  ideal.  It  is  idle  to  suppose  that  there  were  no  churches  at  Tralles, 
Hicrapolis,  Laodicea,  etc.  The  book  is  pervaded  by  the  number  seven  (i.  4 ;  iv.  5 ;  vii.  i  ; 
viii.  2  ;  X.  3  ;  xii.  3  ;  xv.  i  ;  xvii.  9,  10,  etc.).  It  should  be  observed  that  the  sacred  numbers 
arc  througnout  parodied  by  the  anti-sacred  numbers. 

-'  .\I'n  IXcMM  I'lumptre  s.iys)  of  the  Hymen.xus,  Alexander,  and  Philetus  type  (i  Tim.  i. 
2"  :  -.'  Iiiii.  li.  17,.  In  the  days  of  Nero  there  w^re  still  false  teachers,  who  called  themselves 
"  Apostles '■  ;2  Cor.  xi.  13,  14).  It  is  tolerably  certain  that  there  were  none  in  the  d.iys  of 
lJ<imiti.in.  Hippolytus  (recently  discovered  in  an  Arabic  translation)  says  that  they' were 
"  JudaiscrR/r^^w  Jerusalfm,^'  and  certainly  no  such  .agents  were  at  work  so  late  as  a.d.  95. 

'Or,  *'thy  wife  Jizcbel,"  A,  15,  >j,  Andreas,  etc.  IX-an  Hi.nkesley  precariously  identifies 
JC2c»>cl  with  the  Hebrew  sihyl  Sambetha,  who  was  worshipped  at  J  hyatira  (Smith's  Diet. 
Btbl.  J  V.  'Fhyatira).  If  "  thy  wife"  be  the  true  reading,  it  presents  a  curious  parallel  to  the 
state  of  the  Phil.ppian  Church  in  the  days  of  Polycarp.  In  his  letter  to  the  Philippians  (ch. 
XI.).  he  siicaks  of  the  wife  of  one  of  the  Presbyters,  named  Valens,  who  was  guilty  yf  much  the 
Muic  wickrdnc»s  as  ihiii  "Jezebel." 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  505 

seduce  my  servants  to  commit  fornication,  and  to  eat  thin.^s 
sacrificed  to  idols."  The  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Philadel- 
phia is  promised  the  victory  "over  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  of 
them  which  say  they  are  Jews  and  they  are  not,  but  do  lie." 

Little  is  known  about  the  special  characteristics  of  the 
heresies  here  alluded  to.  It  would  hardly  be  necesssary  to 
notice  the  wild  guesses  respecting  them  but  for  the  increasing 
confidence  of  the  assertion  that  these  expressions  are  aimed 
at  St.  Paul  or  his  followers.  St.  Paul  is  supposed  to  be  the 
chief  of  the  heresiarchs,  and  the  leader  of  those  who  falsely 
claimed  to  be  Apostles.'  In  other  words,  we  are  to  believe 
that  the  virtue  of  the  Ephesian  Church  consisted  in  casting 
forth  the  doctrines  and  adherents  of  its  glorious  founder — of 
the  Apostle  who  had  there  faced  martyrdom,  who  had  there 
"fought  with  beasts,"  who-  had  won  the  passionate  affection 
.of  the  first  presbyters,  who  had  toiled  there  with  infinite  de- 
votion for  more  than  two  years,  admonishing  them  night  and 
day  with  tears,  and  with  his  own  hands  ministering  to  their 
necessities.  The  whole  theory  is  monstrous.  The  tone  of 
deep  respect  in  which  the  Asiatics  Polycarp  and  Irenaeus  speak 
of  St.  Paul  is  alone  sufficient  to  overthrow  it.  St.  Paul  him- 
self had  warned  his  Churches  against  "false  Apostles."  They 
did  not,  of  course,  pretend  to  be  of  the  number  of  the  Tivelve; 
neither  did  St.  Paul.  The  notion  that  St.  John  jealously  ex- 
cludes St.  Paul  by  saying  that  on  the  Twelve  foundation  stones 
of  the  New  Jerusalem  were  the  names  of  the  "Twelve  Apos- 
tles of  the  Lamb,"  is  the  idlest  extravagance.  St.  Paul's 
Apostolate  was  neither  from  men,  nor  by  means  of  men.  Un- 
less the  calm  and  definite  testimony  of  St.  Luke  is  to  be  set 
aside  for  the  fictions  of  nameless  heretics,  the  Twelve,  and  St. 
John  among  them,  had  expressly  sanctioned  St.  Paul's  Apos- 
tolic claim,  had  given  him  their  right  hands  of  fellowship,  had 
recognised  his  equality,  had  found  no  fault  with  his  teaching, 
had  sanctioned  his  independence  in  his  own  wide  sphere  of 
toil,  had  even  appealed  to  him  for  sympathy  and  assistance  in 
the  support  of  their  poor.  Polycarp  was  the  hearer  and  de- 
voted admirer  of  St.  John.  If  St.  John  had  been  actuated  by 
a  fanatical  horror  of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  would  Polycarp  have 
spoken  of  the  Apostle  as  ",the  blessed  and  glorious  Paul?"'-^ 

As  for  the  Nicolaitans,  we  know  of  no  excuse  for  regard- 
ing them  as  Paulinists,  even  if  we  admit  the  absurd  notion  that 


'  See  Volkmar,  Covtineiitar  zt'.r  Offe^ib.  pp.  79,  seqq. 
2  Polyc.  Ep.  ad  FkUip.  3. 


505  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Nikolaos,  which  means  '"conquering  the  people,"  is  a  Greek 
translation  of  Biieam,  which  is  precariously  rendered  ''corrupt- 
ing the  people.'"  The  conduct  of  Balaam,  and  the  traditional 
teaching  of  the  Deacon  Nicolas/  would  have  been  at  least  as 
abhorrent  to  St.  Paul  as  to  St.  John.  He  has  himself  again 
and  again  denounced  such  impure  and  Antinomian  tenets,  in 
language  as  powerful  as  and  more  profoundly  reasoned  than 
that  of  the  Apocalypse.  He  has  even  draw^n  the  same  warn- 
ing illustration  from  the  example  of  Balaam.'  To  say  that  in 
any  sense,  literal  or  allegorical,  he  or  any  one  of  his  genuine 
followers  ever  seduced  Christians  to  fornication,  whether  in 
the  form  of  tampering  with  idolatry,  or  thinking  lightly  of 
uncleanness,  is  to  affix  a  wanton  calumny  on  one  of  the  purest 
of  the  saints  of  God.  If  it  be  true  that  any  Christians  dis- 
torted to  their  own  perdition,  or  to  that  of  others,  his  doctrine 
of  Christian  liberty,  he  was  himself  the  first  to  utter  his  warn- 
ing against  such  perversions.  Nor  did  he,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, induce  men  to  eat  "meat  offered  to  idols."  In  cases 
where  the  conscience  was  in  no  way  wounded  by  doing  so — 
in  the  instance  of  those  who  were  firmly  convinced  that  an 
idol  is  nothing  in  the  world — where  the  meat  was  innocently 
bought  in  the  open  market,  or  eaten  in  the  ordinary  intercourse 
t)f  social  life — in  those  carefully  limited  circumstances  he  had 
taught,  and  rightly  taught,  that  the  matter  was  one  of  pure 
indifference.  If  in  saying  "I  will  lay  on  you  none  other  bur- 
den," St,  John  meant  (as  Renan  says)  that  those  had  noth- 
ing to  fear  who  kept  the  concordat  arranged  at  the  Synod  of 
Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.\  it  is  strange  to  overlook  that  this  very 
concordat  had  only  been  won  by  the  genius,  the  energy,  and 
the  initiative  of  St.  Paul.  But  so  far  from  "casting  a  stum- 
bling-block" in  the  path  of  others,  he  had,  on  the  contrary, 
always  maintained,  as  his  Lord  had  done  before  him,"  that 
the  casting  of  stumbling-blocks — which  he  expressed  by  the 
very  same  word  as  St.  John — is  the  deadliest  of  crimes  against 


'  Oescnius  and  Furst  explain  the  name  to  mean  "  Not  of  the  People,"  i.e.,  a  foreigner. 
yitring.-i  makes  it  mean  "  lord  of,"  and  Simonis  '■'destruction  of  the  people."  In  no  sense  is 
It  an  equivalent  of  Nikolaus. 

'■'  On  Niclas,  sec  my  I.i/e  of  .St.  Paul,  i.  133.  There  is  no  absolute  proof  that  the  heretic 
Nvan  ihc  Dc.icon.  but  Ircna:us  (ffagr.  i.  26 ;  iii.  ir)  ajid  liippo'.ytus  (ffaer.  vii.  36)  supposed 
him  to  1m:  so.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  ii.  20  ;  iii.  4)  tells  a  dubious  story  that  when  he 
wa.s  ac/uscd  o»  jcaluiisy  of  his  l)eauiiful  wife,  he  disproved  the  charge  in  a  ver>'  strange  and 
iitiscenily  way.  ^  He  is  the  rcpute<l  author  of  the  rule  that  "we  must  abuse  the  flesh"  (ort  Bel 
■Hai>^Xpri(x9«u  rj]  aapKi),  whii-li  might  convey  the  innocent  meaning  that  stern  self-denial  was 
rtmiiMtc  to  repress  evil  passions.  The  verb  was.  however,  capable  of  the  meaniiig  "  use  to  the 
lull,  and  possibly  some  may  have  founded  <m  this  phrase  the  wicked  inference  that  criminal 
pjuwon  should  be  cured  by  unlimited  indulgence.     See  Kwald.  Cesc/t.  vii.  172. 

I  Cor.  X.  7,  8.  4  :Ma,t.  ^viii.  6.  8,  9  ;  Mark  ix.  43-47. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  50/ 

Christian  charity,'  and  that  it  would  be  better  to  eat  no  meat 
of  any  kind  while  the  world  lasted  than  to  cause  a  weak  brother 
to  offend. 

Again,  to  suppose  that  because  St.  John  (Rev.  ii.  24)  re- 
flects severely  on  those  who  talked  of  "knowing  the  depths  of 
Satan,''  he  must  necessarily  be  uttering  a  malignant  sneer 
against  St.  Paul,  who  had  spoken  of  "the  Spirit  searching  all 
things,  yea,  even  the  depths  of  God,''""  is  to  use  a  style  of  criti- 
cism which  builds  massive  systems  upon  pillars  of  smoke. 
The  utmost  which  we  could  infer  would  be  that  false  teachers 
had  distorted  and  parodied  the  expression  of  St.  Paul.  The 
single  grain  of  truth  in  the  whole  hypothesis  is  that  St.  John 
speaks  in  a  more  sweeping  and  less  limited  way  than  St.  Paul 
about  eating  "meats  offered  to  idols."  It  was  natural  that  it 
should  be  so,  both  because  St.  John's  Judaic  training  had 
given  him  a  deeper  instinctive  horror  of  even  the  semblance 
of  participation  in  idolatry,  and  also  because  he  was  writing 
at.  a  later  date  and  in  days  of  persecution,  in  which  the  act  it- 
self had  acquired  a  more  marked  significance.  Had  St.  Paul 
been  writing  under  the  same  circumstances  as  St.  John,  he 
would  have  spoken  no  less  strongly  on  the  sin  of  a  cowardly 
conformity.  To  eat  of  idol  offerings  in  cases  where  no  mis- 
taken inferences  could  be  drawn  from  doing  so,  was  perfectly 
innocent;  but  it  became  a  very  different  thing  to  eat  of  them 
in  days,  like  those  of  the  Neronian  persecution  or  those  of 
Justin  Martyr,  when  to  do  so  meant  to  be  indifferent  to  the 
sin  of  idolatry.  This  attempt  to  represent  the  Apostles  as 
actuated  by  a  burning  animosity  against  each  other,  and  a  de- 
termination to  "write  each  other  down,"  as  though  they  were 
contributors  to  modern  religious  newspapers,  is  a  total  failure. 
It  is  time  it  were  dismissed.  When  the  Apostles  differed 
from  each  other — as  we  know,  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles- 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  that  they  sometimes  did — it 
was  only  in  the  spirit  of  mutual  respect  and  affection  in  which 
Luther  differed  from  Melancthon,  and  Bossuet  from  Fenelon.' 

The  false  Jews,  the  false  Apostles,  the  Nicolaitans,  the 
Balaamites,  were  immoral  sectarians,  whether  Judaic  or  anti- 
Judaic,  against  whom  St.  Paul  had  beforehand  warned  his 
Churches,  very  much  as  St.  John  has  done,  and  against  whom 
every  one  of  the  sacred  writers  has  lifted   up   his  voice.     To 

1  1  Cor.  viii.  13  ;  x.  32  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  29  ;  Rom.  xiv.  21. 

■■^  I  Cor.  ii.  10;  comp.  Rom.  xi.  33.  , 

3  Luther,  as  a  friend  reminds  me,  is  sometimes  a  little  severe  upon  "  Phiiippi?mus."  and 

Bossuet  admitted  that  he  had  sometimes  argued  in  opposition  to  Fenelon  without  naming  him. 


50S  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

admit  that  St.  John  could  have  written  such  railing  accusations 
against  his  glorious  brother  Apostle,  is  to  imply  that  he  was 
unworthy  to  be  an  Apostle,  or  a  sacred  writer  at  all.  It  is  to 
degrade  him  at  once  to  the  level  of  modern  partisans.  The 
early  Christians  had  not  yet  been  taught  that  religion  con- 
sisted in  breathing  the  atmosphere  of  faction,  slanderousness, 
and  hate.  There  were  some,  even  then,  "who  preached 
Christ  of  contention,  supposing  to  add  affliction  to  St.  Paul's 
bonds,"  and  they  would  have  been  w^ell  qualified  to  write  an- 
onymous articles  of  unfair  and  unchristian  depreciation.  But 
they  incurred  a  stern  censure  from  the  lips  of  Christ's  Apostle. 
Such  orthodoxy  is  heterodoxy;  such  religion  is  irreligion; 
such  Christianity  is  worse  than  heathendom,  and  is  no  Chris- 
tianity at  all. 

We  reach  the  culmination  of  these  exegetic  absurdities 
when  we  find  Volkmar  also  identifying  the  Second  Wild  Beast 
from  the  Land,  and  the  False  Prophet  of  Rev.  xiii.  and  xvii., 
with  St.  Paul! 

Writers  of  the  Tubingen  School  were  so  enchanted  with 
their  discovery  that  the  struggle  between  Jewish  and  Pauline 
Christianity  was  longer  and  more  permanent  than  had  been 
supposed,  that  they  exaggerated  the  significance  of  the  second 
century  calumnies  against  St.  Paul.  They  forgot  that  the 
Clementines  were  heretical,  and  that  these  Ebionite  attacks 
were,  after  all,  subterranean  and  pseudonymous.  As  for  the 
grounds  on  which  St.  Paul  is  identified  with  the  False  Prophet 
— namely,  because  in  writing  to  the  Romans'  he  taught  loyal 
obedience  to  the  powers  that  be  as  being  "ordained  of  God"^ 
— Volkmar  surely  forgets  that  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  on  this 
subject  was  the  normal  teaching  of  all  the  Apostles,  of  all  the 
early  Christian  Fathers  and  Apologists,  nay,  more,  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Himself.  St.  Peter — writing  in  the  days  of  Nero 
— writing,  in  all  probability,  during  the  Neronian  persecution, 
had  not  only  said  "Honour  the  king,"  but  even  "Submit 
y(nirselves  unto  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake, 
w/ii'i/ier  it  be  to  the  king  as  supreme^  or  unto  governors,  as  unto 
them  that  are  appointed  by  him  for  the  punishment  of  evil 
doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them  that  do  well."  And  as  to 
the  Divine  authority  of  heathen  government,  St.  John  him- 
self records  in  his  Gospel  how  our  Lord  said  to  Pilate,  "Thou 
coulde.st  have  no  power  at  all  against  me,  except  it  were  given 
thcc  from  above.''''     Indeed,  such   teaching  was  so  obviously 


KoiM.  xiii.  1-7.  a  1  Pet.  ii.  ,3,  ,4_i7.  3  John  xix.  11 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  509 

based  on  common  sense  and  common  duty,  that  even  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem — even  in  the  days  when  detestation 
of  the  Gentiles  had  been  reduced  to  something  like  a  system 
— Rabbi  Chanina  used  to  say,  "Pray  for  the  established 
government,  for,  but  for  it,  men  would  devour  each  other.'" 


SECTION   II. 

THE    SEALS, 

After  the  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  begins  the  more 
definitely  Apocalyptic  portion  of  the  book.  The  Apostle 
hears  a  voice  bidding  him  ascend  to  heaven,  and  see  things 
which  must  come  to  pass  after  these  things.  Instantly,  in  an 
ecstasy,  he  sees  a  throne  in  heaven,  encircled  by  an  emerald 
rainbow,  whereon  was  seated  One  whose  lustre  was  as  a  jasper 
and  a  sardine.  Round  the  throne  were  twenty-four  enthroned 
elders,  representing  the  Patriarchs  of  the  redeemed  Church 
of  both  dispensations,  arrayed  in  white  and  crowned  with 
gold.  Out  of  the  throne  came  an  incessant  rolling  of  thunders 
and  voices,  and  a  stream  of  lightnings;  and  before  it  there 
burned,  as  with  the  flame  of  seven  lamps,  the  sevenfold  Spirit 
of  God.  Before  the  Throne  flowed  a  glassy  sea  of  crystal 
brightness,  and  about  it  were  the  fourfold  cherubim,  six- 
winged  and  full  of  eyes,  symbols  of  all  that  is  most  perfect  in 
creation,  hymning  the  perpetual  Trisagion,  and  joining  in  the 
endless  liturgy  of  prayer  and  praise.  On  the  right  hand  of 
Him  who  sat  on  the  throne  was  a  book,  seven-sealed,  and 
written  within  and  without.  In  answer  to  the  appeal  of  an 
angel  no  one  is  found  worthy  to  open  the  book  but  the  Lion 
of  the  Tribe  of  Judah,  who  is  also  the  Lamb  that  was  slain. 
When  He  has  taken  the  book  there  is  a  fresh  outburst  of  uni- 
versal triumph  and  blessing,  in  which  even  those  join  who  are 
"under  the  earth."" 

i.  The  Lamb  opens  one  of  the  seven  seals,  and  one  of  the 
Immortalities  cries  with  a  voice  of  thunder,  "Come!" 

Instantly  there  springs  forth  a  white  horse,  bearing  a  rider 
with  a  bow  in  his  hand,  to  whom  a  crown  is  given,  and  who 
goes  forth  conquering  and  to  conquer.  It  is  a  symbol  of  the 
Messiah  riding  forth  to  victory,  but  armed  only  with  a  bow 


1  Mechilta  on  Exod.  xix.  i. 

2  Verse  13,  comp.  Phil.  ii.  10.     With  the  vague  numbers  of  the  numberless  multitude  comp. 
Dan.  vii.  10. 


510  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  smite  his  enemies,  not  as  yet  in  close  conflict,  but  from 
afar. ' 

But  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  to  be  ushered  in  by  the 
woes  which  are  the  travail-pangs  of  a  new  dispensation. 

ii.  The  Lamb  opens  the  Second  Seal,  and  the  second  Im- 
mortality cries  '*Come!" 

Instantly  2.  fiery  horse — a  horse  red  as  blood^ — leaps  forth, 
whose  rider  is  armed  with  a  great  sword.  It  is  the  symbol  of 
War.  To  him  it  is  given  to  take  peace  from  the  earth,  and 
that — as  in  the  fierce  conflicts  between  Otho  and  Vitellius,  be- 
tween Vitellius  and  Vespasian,  betw^een  the  Jews  and  the 
Romans,  between  John  of  Giscala  and  Simon — men  should 
slay  one  another  in  internecine  and  civil  discard.  It  was  an 
epoch  of  wars  and  massacres.  I'here  had  been  massacres  in 
Alexandria;  massacres  at  Seleucia;  massacres  at  Jamnia;  mas- 
sacres at  Damascus;  massacres  at  Csesarea;  massacres  at  Be- 
driacum.  There  had  been  wars  in  Britain,  wars  in  Armenia, 
wars  in  Gaul,  wars  in  Italy,  wars  in  Arabia,  wars  in  Parthia, 
wars  in  Judaea.  Disbanded  soldiers  and  marauding  troops 
filled  the  world  with  rapine,  terror,  and  massacre.  The  world 
was  like  an  Aceldama,  or  field  of  blood.  The  red  horse  and 
its  rider  are  but  a  visible  image  of  the  words  of  our  Lord — 
"For  nation  shall  rise  against  nation,  and  kingdom  against 
kingdom;"  and  "Ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and  rumours  of  wars, 
which  things  are  the  beginning  of  the  birth-throes."^ 

iii.  The  Lamb  opens  the  Third  Seal,  and  the  third  Im- 
mortality utters  the  word  "Come!" 

Instantly  a  black  horse  leaps  forth.  Its  rider  is  unarmed, 
but  holds  in  his  hand  a  balance;  and  by  way  of  explanation  a 
voice  is  heard  from  among  the  four  Immortalities  saying,  "A 
choenix  of  wheat  for  a  denarius,  and  three  of  barley  for  a  de- 
narius." The  rider  is  Famine.  A  choenix  was  less  than  a 
(juart,  and  was  the  minimum  allowance  for  a  day's  food,^  yet 
it  was  to  cost  a  whole  day's  wages ;''  and  a  third  of  the  same 
j)rice  was  to  be  given  for  even  so  coarse  a  grain  as  barley — a 
food  to  which  Roman  soldiers  were  only  degraded  by  way  of 


'  Comp.  xix.  II.  Both  Victorinus,  in  his  commentary,  and  Tcrtullian  [de  Cor.  Mil.  15) 
understand  the  Rider  of  the  White  Horse  to  be  Christ.  J'hc  white  horse  is  a  sign  of  victory 
( Vir;{.  ,-/'.;/.  iii.  537}.     'i^hc  sj-mhol  of  the  bow  is,  perhaps,  derived  from  Pss.  vii.  13,  xlv.  6. 

'•*  a  Kings  iii.  22,  irvppa  wv  al/xa. 

•  Matt.  xxiv.  4,  7.  For  corroborative  authorities  see  Jos.  Antt.  xviii.  9,  §  9  ;  xix.  i,  §  2 ; 
B.  y.  ii.  17:  X.  18  (where  he  says  that  "a  terrih'e' disturbance  prevailed  throughout  Syria,  and 
every  city  h.id  been  divided  into  two  camps")  ;'  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  Jxissivt. 

*  Herod,  vii.  187  ;   Diog.  L.-iert.  viii.  i8. 

»  Matt.  XX.  2  ;  xxiv.  7  ;  Mark  xiii.  7  ;  Tac.  Ann.  i.  i.  In  Sicily,  in  the  day  of  Cicero,  twelve 
ihttnixes  ol  ivhent  wwXA  be  Irought  for  a  denarius  (Cic.  Vcrr.  iii.  81),  and  therefore  thirty-six 
A  Ijarlcy. 


THE  APOCALYPSE.  5II 

punishment.    Thus  wheat  and  barley  were  to  rise  twenty  times 
their  usual  price,  to  the  infinite  distress  of  men. 

"  He  calls  for  Famine,  and  the  eager  fiend 
Blows  poisonous  mildew  from  his  shrivelled  lips, 
And  taints  the  golden  ear,"  * 

It  was  an  epoch  of  constant  famines.  The  dependence  of 
Rome  and  Italy  upon  Alexandria  for  corn  caused  bitter  and 
constant  distress.  In  the  reign  of  Claudius  the  famine  and 
its  accompanying  prodigies  had  been  deemed  an  omen,  and 
only  fifteen  days'  food  had  been  left  in  Rome."  About  this 
very  time,  a.d.  68 — in  the  midst  of  Nero's  impotent  buffoon- 
eries— the  people,  already  burdened  by  famine  prices,  were 
nearly  maddened  by  the  discovery  that  a  ship  from  Alexan- 
dria, which  had  been  mistaken  for  one  of  the  famous  wheat 
ships,  had  a  lading  of  sand  with  which  to  strew  the  amphi- 
theatre.^ The  overflow  of  the  Tiber,  early  in  the  reign  of 
Otho,  caused,  as  Tacitus  says,  famine  among  the  common 
people,  and  a  scarcity  of  the  commonest  elements  of  life/  It 
was  the  deliberate  object  of  Vespasian  to  cause  famine  and 
dissensions  at  Rome  by  stopping  the  supplies  of  provisions, 
nor  did  he  let  the  corn-ships  sail  till  only  ten  days*  supply  was 
left  in  the  city.^  In  Jerusalem,  during  the  final  state  of  siege 
which  was  now  rapidly  approaching,  the  anguish  and  horror 
of  the  famine  were  unspeakable.  Josephus  tells  us  that  many 
sold  their  all  for  a  single  choenix  of  wheat  if  they  were  rich,  of 
barley  if  they  were  poor,  and  shut  themselves  up  in  the  in- 
most recesses  of  their  houses  to  eat  it  raw;  and  that  many  had 
to  undergo  unspeakable  tortures  to  make  them  confess  that 
they  had  but  one  loaf  of  bread,  or  so  much  as  a  handful  of 
barley  meal.*'  Terribly — both  in  Italy  and  in  Judaea — did  the 
fearful  rider  of  the  black  horse  do  his  appointed  work!  He  is 
a  visible  symbol  of  the  Lord's  words — "There  shall  be  fam- 
ines    ....     in  divers  places."  ' 

But  the  third  Immortality  added  the  strange  words,  "And 
the  oil  and  the  wine  hurt  thou  not."  Oil  and  wine  are  not 
necessaries  but  luxuries.  It  is  as  though  he  had  said,  "In 
the  wild  anguish  of  famine  let  their  pangs  be  aggravated  by 
having  the  needless  accessories  of  abundance."  So  it  was — 
strange  to  say — in  both  the  places  on  which  the  Seer's  eye  is 

'  Cowper,  ^* 

-  'lac.  Ann.  xii.  43  :  "frugum  egestas  etorta  ex  eofames.''  Suet.  Claud.  18,  " assiduae 
steriliiates."     (Comp.  Jos.  Antt.  iii.  15,  §  3.)  '  Suet.  Ner.  46. 

4  Tac.  H,  i.  86:  "fames  in  volgxis,  inopia  quaestus,  et  penuria  allmentorum  '  /Suet,  Otho, 
8).  s  Tac.  H.  iii.  48  ;  iv.  52.  ^  Jqs.  B.  J.  v.  10,  §  2.  '  Matt.  xxiv.  7. 


512  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

mainly  fixed,  Jerusalem  and  Rome.  In  Jerusalem,  while  myri- 
ads were  starving,  John  of  Giscala  and  his  Zealots  had  access 
to  the  sacred  stores  of  wine  and  oil  in  the  Temple,  and  wasted 
it  with  reckless  extravagance,^  and  Simon's  followers  were 
even  hindered  from  fighting  by  their  perpetual  drunkenness. 
In  Rome  immense  abundance  of  wine  was  a  frequent  con- 
comitant of  extreme  scarcity  of  corn.  So  marked  was  the 
evil,  that  Domitian  endeavoured  to  secure  by  edict  the  dimin- 
ution of  the  vinelands,  and  the  devotion  of  wider  areas  to  the 
cultivation  of  cereals  for  human  food/ 

iv.  The  I.amb  opens  the  Fourth  Seal.  The  fourth  Im- 
mortality utters  his  solemn  "Come!" 

Instantly  a //zvV/ horse  leaps  forth.  His  rider  is  Death; 
and  Hades  follows  to  receive  the  prey.  They  usher  in  a 
crowd  of  calamities  over  a  quarter  of  the  earth — sword,  and 
famine,  and  pestilence,  and  wild  beasts.  Sword  and  famine 
had  done  part  of  their  work;  pestilence  and  the  increase  of 
wild  beasts  naturally  follow  them.  God's  four  sore  judgments 
usually  go  hand  in  hand.''  Christ  had  already  said  of  these 
days  that  there  should  be  famines  and  pestilences,  as  well  as 
wars  and  rumours  of  wars.  Apart  from  the  inevitable  preva- 
lence of  wild  beasts  in  places  where  the  inhabitants  are  thinned 
and  weakened  by  calamity,  an  incredible  number  of  human 
beings  were  yearly  sacrificed  to  wild  beasts  in  the  bloody 
shows  of  the  amphitheatres,  not  only  at  Rome  but  throughout 
all-the  provinces.  Lions  and  tigers  were  literally  fed  with 
men.*  A  pestilence  at  Rome  carried  off  30,000  in  a  single 
year.'  At  Jerusalem  there  was  from  these  combined  causes 
"a  glut  of  mortality"  almost  incredible.  It  was  calculated 
that  upwards  of  a  million  perished  in  the  siege,  and  Mannasus, 
son  of  Lazarus,  told  Titus  that  even  before  the  Romans  en- 
camped under  the  walls,  he  had  seen  115,880  corpses  carried 
through  one  single  gate." 

v.   The  Lamb  opens  the  Fifth  Seal. 

Immediately  under  the  golden  altar  of  incense  before  the 
throne,  are  seen  the  .souls  of  the  "great  multitude"  who  had 
perished  "for  the  word  of  God  and  for  the  testimony  which 
they  held,"' some  at  Jerusalem,  some  in  the  provinces,  but 
most  of  all  in  the  Neronian  persecution  at  Rome.     They  are 

•  Jos  li.  7.  V.  13,  S  6  ;  I,  §  4.  2  Suet.  Dom.  7. 
'  Kzck.  XIV,  21 ;  Matt.  XXIV.  6,  8  :  Mnrk  xii^8. 

<  Hence  one  of  the  wild  pi.ins  of  revenge  wliWi  chased  each  other  across  the  brain  of  Nero 
on  h!ii  last  day  of  life,  was  to  let  loose  upon  the  people  the  wild  beasts  of  the  amphitheatre. 
5>uee.  A  i-r.  43  :      urbcm  incendcrc  feris  in  populuni  immissis." 

•  Suet.  Sfr.  39;  lac.  Ann.  xvi.  13.  6  Sgg  Jos.  B.  J.  v.  12,  §  3  ;   13,  §  7. 
'  Rev.  VI.  y  ;  vii.  13 ;  xvu.  6 ;  xx.  4.  .  b  J  •     J^  s  / 


THE    APOCALYPSE.  513 

impatiently  appealing  for  vengeance  and  judgment.'  Hero 
after  hero  had  fallen  in  the  Christian  warfare.  Apostle  after 
Apostle  had  been  sent  to  his  dreadful  martyrdom.  St.  Peter 
had  been  crucified;  St.  Paul  beheaded;  St.  James  the  Elder 
beheaded;  St.  James,  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  hurled  down 
and  beaten  to  death;  hundreds  of  others  burnt,  or  tortured, 
or  torn  to  pieces  in  the  gardens  of  Nero  and  in  the  Roman 
circus;  yet  no  Deliverer  flashed  from  the  morning  clouds. 
How  long,  oh  Lord,  how  long!  When  all  the  world  is  ar- 
rayed against  Thy  saints,  must  not  deliverance  assume  the 
inevitable  guise  of  temporal  vengeance? — White  robes  are 
given  them,  and  they  are  bidden  to  wait  till  the  number  of 
the  martyrs  is  complete,  till  their  brethren  who  are  still  on 
earth  shall  have  fulfilled  their  course.''  They  are  those  of 
whom  Christ  had  prophesied  when  he  said  "Then" — after 
the  "beginning  of  sorrows" — "shall  they  deliver  you  up  to 
be  afflicted,  and  shall  kill  you."  The  time  had  come  for 
judgment  to  begin  at  the  thr4)ne  of  God.  Meanwhile  the  fire 
of  olden  prophecy  was  rekindled  for  their  inspiration,  and  they 
found  that  the  more  they  were  trodden  down  the  more  did  they 
feel  the  conviction  of  glorious  triumph,  and  the  exultation  of 
inward  peace.  They  who  have  an  invisible  King  to  sustain 
them,  and  a  John  to  utter  His  messages,  may  brave  the  banded 
forces  of  secular  despotism  and  religious  hatred — and  may 
stand  undismayed  between  a  Zealot-maddened  Jerusalem  and 
a  Neronian  Rome.  If  the  judgement  began  with  Christians, 
what  should  be  the  end  of  those  who  obeyed  not  the  Gospel 
of  God?^ 

vi.  The  Lamib  opens  the  Sixth  Seal. 

Instantly  there  are  all  the  signs  which  usher  in  a  Day  of 
the  Lord.  The  darkened  sun,  the  lurid  moon,  the  showers 
of  meteors,  the  shrivelling  heavens,  the  terror  with  which  men 
call  on  the  rocks  and  mountains  to  fall  on  them  and  hide 
them,  are  the  metaphors  of  vast  earthly  changes  and  catastro- 
phes. At  first  sight  it  might  well  seem  as  if  they  could  de- 
scribe nothing  short  of  the  final  conflagration  arid  ruin  of  the 
globe.  But  there  is  not  one  of  these  metaphors  which  is  not 
found  in  the  Old  Testament  Prophets,*  and  in  them  they  refer 

1  This  has  been  variously  excused  bj'  different  commentators.  "  Non  haec  odio  inimico- 
rum,"  says  Bedc,  "pro  quibus  in  hoc  s.-\eculo  rogaverunt,  orant,  sed  amore  aequitatis."  Ben- 
gel  explains  their  impatience  as  zeal  for  the  truth  and  holiness  of  the  I^ord  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  19  ; 
Luke  xviii.  7,  8). 

2  Conip.  Enoch  civ.  1-3.  "Ye  righteous,  .  .  ..  your  cries  have  cried  for  vengeance  .  .  . 
•iKnit  with  j>atietit  hope."  See  too  Gen.  iv.  10  ;  Job  xvi.,  xix.;  Is.  xxvi.  21  ;  2  Esdras  xv.  8, 
etc.  3  I  Pet.  iv.  17. 

*  See  Is.  ii.  12,  19  ;  xiii.  10  ;  xxxiv.  3,  4:  1.  3  ;  jxiii.  4  :  Jer.  iv.  23-26  ;  Ezek.  xxxii.  7,  8; 
Joel  u.  10,  31  ;  iii.  4,  15  :  Hos.  x.  8  ;  Nah.  i.  6  ;  Ma),  iii.  2,  etc.     'Jhe  extent  to  which  the  Apos- 


514  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

in  every  instance  to  the  destruction  of  cities  and  the  establish- 
ment of  new  covenants,  or  to  other  earthly  revolutions.  Not 
only  had  our  Lord  adopted  these  vivid  Oriental  symbols  to 
describe  the  signs  of  His  Coming  in  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
and  the  close  of  the  old  3eon,  but  he  had  expressly  said  that 
'7///V  i^cneration  shall  not  pass  aivay  until  all  these  things  be  ful- 
filled?'^ It  is  clear,  therefore — as  nearly  every  school  of  in- 
terpreters has  seen— that  they  are  but  a  description,  in  the 
language  of  Eastern  poetry  and  metaphor,  of  an  age  terrified 
alike  by  political  crises  and  physical  calamities.  Such  a  de- 
scription accords  exactly  with  the  reality.  In  the  sudden  col- 
lapse of  the  deified  line  of  the  Julii,  who  had  governed  them 
for  four  generations,  the  Romans  saw  an  omen  which  seemed 
to  threaten  the  world  with  destruction.'  There  reigned  every- 
where a  universal  terror.'  Throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  but  most  of  all  in  Judaea,  in  the  midst 
of  the  violent,  revolutionary  movements  which  marked  the 
day,  men's  hearts  were  failing  tb^m  for  fear."* 

vii.  Then,  before  the  opening  of  the  Seventh  Seal,  there 
is  a  pause.  The  Angels  of  the  winds  had  been  bidden  to  pre- 
vent their  ravages^  until  the  servants  of  God  are  sealed  upon 
their  foreheads  by  the  Angel  from  the  sunrising.  The  seal  is 
doubtless  the  cross  of  baptism,  just  as  in  Ezekiel  (ix.  4,  6) 
those  alone  are  to  be  spared  from  slaughter  who  have  '  'the 
sign  Thau," — that  is  the  cross — upon  their  foreheads."  A 
purely  ideal  number  are  sealed — namely,  twelve  times  twelve 
thousand — twelve  thousand  from  each  of  the  twelve  tribes. 
The  tribe  of  Dan  is  alone  omitted,  probably  because  it  had 
almost  disappeared  from  the  annals  of  Israel.''  Besides  these, 
the  seer  beheld  an  innumerable  multitude  of  every  nation,  and 
all  tribes  and  peoples  and  tongues  arrayed  in  white  and  with 

tic  borrows  the  phrases  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be  seen  by  taking  Rev.  i.  12-17,  ^"cl  com- 
p  >ring  it  phrase  by  phrase  with  Zech.  iv.  2;  Dan.  vii.  13  ;  x.  5  ;  vii.  9  ;  x.  6,  11,  12  ;  Is.  xlix.  2  ; 
I'./ek.  xliii.  2. 

'  Malt.  xxiv.  29-34.  2  SeeTac.  ^.  i.  II.  3  Luke  xxiii.  36. 

*  Here,  if  any  one  believes  that  the  Apocalyptic  symbols  are  infinitely  plastic,  he  may  hold 
with  flodet  that  the  seals  foreshadow  "  aU  the  wars,  aU  the  famines,  all  the  persecutions,  all 
tlic  earthquakes,  etc.,  which  the  earth  has  seen  or  will  see  until  the  last  scene  for  which  the 
trumpets  give  the  signal. " 

'  Among  other  things  they  are  forbidden  "  to  hurt  any  tree,""  vii.  i  (comp.  ix.  4).  The 
Jews  Jplt  deeply  the  destruction  of  all  the  trees  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jeru.salem  during  the 
Jewish  war.  Kabbi  Yochanan  said,  "The  Holy  One— blessed  be  He  !— will  in  future  replace 
every  acacia  which  the  heathen  have  taken  aw.ay  from  Jerusalem."  He  supported  this  by  Is. 
xli.  19,  saying  that  "  the  wilderness  "  (Is.  Ixiv.  10)  was  meant  to  indicate  Jerusalem  (Rosh 
Hashanah,  f.  23,  a).  «  The  ancient  form  of  the  letter  'J'hnu  was  -|-. 

'  It  is  not  worth  while  to  repeat  all  the  idle  conjectures  about  this  point.  The  Targum  of 
Jonathan  on  Kx.  xvii.  8  represents  Dan  as  "a  sinner  from  the  beginning" — a  tribe  thoroughly 
iilolatr<ius(scc  Kw.ald,  (ifsc/t.  i.  490).  Simeon  is  omitted  in  Dent,  xxxiii.,  and  Dan  in  i  Chron. 
iv.  After  i  Chron.  xxviii.  2a  it  is  not  mentioned.  Levi  is  here  counted  as  one  of  the  tribes, 
liccausc  all  the  Lord's  true  people  are  now  priests. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  515 

palms  in  their  hands.  One  of  the  elders  tells  him'  that  these 
are  they  who  came  "out  of  the  great  tribulation" — that  is,  the 
Neronian  persecution — and  have  washed  their  robes  and  made 
them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  The  whole  company- 
are  "the  elect  gathered  together  from  the  four  winds,  from 
one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other.  "^  The  144,000  seem  to 
represent  the  ideal  Israel.  The  "numberless  multitude," 
which  is  almost  the  identical  expression  used  of  the  Nero- 
nian martyrs  alike  by  Tacitus  and  by  Clemens  Romanus,^  are 
those  who  have  died  for  the  truth  of  Christ,  whose  souls  St. 
John  has  already  seen  in  shadowy  throngs  beneath  the  altar. 

viii.  We  still  await  in  dread  expectation  the  opening  of 
the  Seventh  Seal.  But  when  it  is  opened  there  is  a  pause  of 
terrified  astonishment,  a  silence  for  half  an  hour  in  Heaven, 
as  though  the  dwellers  in  Heaven  drew  their  breath  in  anguish 
of  expectation.  It  is  like  the  awful  pause  before  the  hurri- 
cane, when  we  hear  "the  destroying  Angels  murmuring  to- 
gether as  they  draw  their  swords  in  the  distance,"  and  "the 
questioning  in  terrified  stillness  of  the  forest  leaves  which 
way  the  wind  shall  come. ' '  For  hitherto  the  judgments  of  the 
earth  have  only  been  seen  in  Heaven  by  the  shadowy  images 
of  those  who  went  forth  for  their  accomplishment;  but  now 
are  to  be  seen  the  very  judgments  themselves.  There  are 
seven  Angels* — 

"the  Seven 
Who  in  God's  presence,  nearest  to  His  throne 
Stand  ready  at  command,  and  are  His  eyes 
That  run  through  all  the  Heavens,  and  down  to  the  earth     - 
Bear  His  swift  errands." 

To  these  Angels  are  given  seven  Trumpets  to  blow  the  signals 
of- doom. ^  The  results  that  follow  the  blast  of  their  seven 
trumpets  practically  form  the  issue  of  the  breaking  of  the 
seventh  Seal.  But  the  troubles  which  follow  are  neither  de- 
finite, nor  continuous,  nor  rigidly  historical.  They  closely 
resemble  those  which  have  followed  at  the  opening  of  the  sixth 
Seal,  only  that  these  trumpet  calamities  affect  a  third,  and 
not  a  fourth,  part  of  the  earth."  They  indicate  the  widening 
spread  and  deepening  intensity  of  judgment:  and  although  it 
is  not  possible  to  point  out  in  chronological  sequence  the  ex- 
act events  which  they  describe  in  hyperbolic  symbolism,  they 

I  Cf.  Zech.  iv.  4,  5.  2  Matt.  xxiv.  31.  ^  o^Xos  ttoAw?,  "  ingens  vtultitudo." 

**  SeeTobit  xii.  15  ;  Dan.  x.  13  ;  Zech.  iv.  10.  The  names  are  given  differently  in  the  Kook 
of  Enoch,  the  Targiim  of  Jonathan,  and  other  sources  (see  Gfrorer,  Jahrb.  d.  Ileils,  i.  361). 

*  Comp.  I  Cor.  XV.  52  ;  4  Esdr.  v.  3  ;   Matt.  xxiv.  31. 

«  The  "third  part"  is  evidently  a  general  expression,  as  in  Zech.  xiii.  9.  It  probably  in- 
dicates the  Roman  Empire  (ix.  18  ;  xii.  6). 


5l6  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

resemble  those  signs  in  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars,  and  the 
sea  by  which  the  Lord  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  had  shadowed 
forth  the  troubles  of  the  approaching  end.  The  language  is 
also  coloured  by  reminiscences  of  the  Plagues  of  Egypt.* 
Further,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  to  the  eye  of  the  seer 
the  outlines  of  time  are  indistinct,  and  there  is  a  commingling 
of  the  events  of  the  present  and  the  immediate  past  with  those 
of  the  instantly  anticipated  future.  The  repetition  of  the 
vision  of  judgment  in  various  forms  is  one  of  the  recognised 
Hebrew  methods  of  expressing  their  certainty.  The  same 
general  calamities  are  indicated  by  diverse  symbols.  Let  it 
not  be  supposed  that  there  is  anything  novel  in  this  view. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  found  as  far  back  as  the  close  of  the 
third  century,  in  the  most  ancient  of  all  the  extant  Scholia  on 
the  Apocalypse — those  by  St.  Victorinus  of  Pettau,  who  was 
martyred  in  the  days  of  Diocletian."^  He  regards  the  visions 
as  mainly  retrogressive  and  iterative.  '  'The  phials,"  he  says, 
"are  a  supplement  of  what  he  said  of  the  trumpets.  We  must 
not  regard  the  mere  order  of  the  statements,  for  the  Holy 
Spirit,  after  he  has  advanced  to  the  end  of  the  latest  time, 
often  returns  to  the  same  time  again,  and  supplies  all  which 
was  before  partially  stated."  And  just  before  this  passage, 
he  says,  "that  though  the  seer  repeats  bythe  vials  (what  had 
been  implied  by  the  trumpets)  this  does  not  imply  a  repetition  of 
the  fact,  but  is  a  twofold  statement  of  a  single  decreed  event." 
There  is  fair  reason  to  suppose  that  Victorinus  derived  this 
valuable,  and  by  no  means  obvious,  principle  of  interpretation 
from  early,  and  perhaps  from  Apostolic  tradition. 

SECTION    HI. 

THE    TRUMPETS. 

Before  the  seven  Angels  sound,  another  Angel,  standing 
at  the  altar,  mixes  abundant  incense  in  a  golden  censer  with 
the  prayers  of  the  saints.  Some  at  least  of  these  prayers  are 
represented  as  having  been  a  unanimous  cry  for  speedy  ven- 
geance. In  answer  to  these,  the  Angel  takes  the  censer,  fills 
it  with  fire  from  the  altar,  and  hurls  it  upon  the  earth,  which 
echoes  back  its  crashing  fall  in  thunderings,  lightnings,  voices, 
and  earthquakes.    Such  thunderings  and  lightnings  and  earth- 

'  Sec  I-iikc  xxi.  25. 

'  Sec  Aiifj.  De  CiT.  Dei,  xx.  14.  So  too  Andreas,  Corn,  i  Lapide,  Vitringa,  Bengal,  and 
many  commcniators  of  all  schools,  including  writers  so  unlike  each  other  as  Bossuet,  Ewald, 
J  )c  Wcttc,  and  Kcuss,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Elliott,  Wordsworth,  and  Hengstenbere,  on  the 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  5l7 

quakes  were,  according  to  Tacitus  and  Suetonius,  character- 
istic of  the  epoch.  I  have  already  quoted  the  solemn  language 
in  which  Tacitus  summarises  the  manifold  calamities  of  this 
very  period/  Speaking  of  the  day  on  which  Galba  adopted 
Piso — Jan.  lo,  A.D.  69 — he  says  that  the  day  was  foul  with 
rain-storms,  and  disturbed  beyond  natural  wont  with  thunders, 
lightnings,  and  the  threats  of  heaven^"''^ — omens  which  he 
blames  Galba  for  neglecting.  Speaking  a  few  years  earlier, 
he  observes  that  "never  had  the  storms  of  lightning  flashed 
with  more  frequent  violence;"^  and  this  he  mentions  among 
the  prodigies  which  were  the  indication  of  imminent  calam- 
ities. In  Asia,  where  St.  John  was  writing,  the  era  might 
well  be  called  the  era  of  earthquakes.  *  'Nowhere  in  the  whole 
word,"  says  Solinus,  "are  earthquakes  so  constant  and  cities 
so  frequently  overthrown."  They  are  referred  to  again  and 
again  by  all  the  writers  and  historians  of  the  age.* 

i.  Then  the  first  Angel  sounded.  Hail  followed,  and  fire 
mingled  with  blood,  and  a  third  part  of  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
with  its  grass  and  trees,  was  scorched  up.^  They  are  but  the 
beginning  of  the  worse  hail  (xvi.  21)  and  fire  (xx.  9)  and  blood 
(xiv.  20)  which  are  to  follow.  They  point  to  years  of  burning 
drought  and  rains  of  blood,"  and  to  disastrous  conflagrations, 
such  as  those  at  Lyons,  Rome,  and  Jerusalem,  and  to  fierce 
storms  of  hail — such  as  so  often  destroy  in  a  few  hours  the  vine- 
yards of  Lombardy — and  to  scenes  of  human  bloodshed.  And 
we  must  once  more  remind  the  reader  that  these  storms  and 
prodigies,  so  far  from  being  peculiar  to  the  Apocalypse,  or 
understood  in  a  peculiar  significance,  are  referred  to  in  very 
similar  terms  and  explained  in  a  very  similar  way  by  other  Chris- 
tian, heathen,  and  Jewish  writers.  Speaking  of  the  earthquake 
of  A.D.  63,  Dion  Cassius,  reflecting  the  impression  of  contem- 
poraries, calls  it  the  "greatest  that  had  ever  happened." 
Can  we  be  surprised  if,  in  a  book  which  reads  like  a  hundred- 

-  Tac.  H.  i.  3.  Ithad  long  been  customary  to  connect  such  phenomena  with  pohtical 
events  (Cic.  De  Div.  i,  18;  Suet.  Aug.  94). 

2  Tac.  H.  i.  18.  3  Tac.  Ann.  xv.  47. 

•*  Dion  Cass.  Ixvi.  23-24;  Jos.  Aiitt.  xv.  5,  §  2  ;  ^.  y.  1.  19,  §  3  ;  iv.  4,  §  5  ;  Tac.  Ann.  ii. 
47  ;  iv.  13  ;  xii.  43-58  ;  xiv.  27  ;  Sen.  Qu.  Nat.  vi.  i  ;  Suet.  Tib.  74,  Ner.  20  ;  Juv.  Sat.  vi.  411  ; 
Carm.  Sib.  iii.  471  ;  Strabo,  xii.  8,  §  16,  etc.  Seneca  exclaims,  "  How  often  have  the  cities 
of  Asia,  how  often  those  of  Achaia,  fallen  by  one  shock  !  How  many  towns  in  Syria,  how 
many  in  Macedonia,  have  been  devoured  !  .  .  .  ,  Often  have  the  ruins  of  whole  cities  been 
announced  to  us"  {Kp.  91). 

5  See  Ex.  ix.  22  ;  Jfoel  ii.  3.  The  reference  to  the  destruction  of  trees  in  the  Apocalypse 
may  be  due  to  the  terrible  destruction  of  the  trees  and  the  vegetation  of  Palestine  in  the  Jewish 
war,  especially  round  Jerusalem  ;  a  destruction  from  which  it  has  never  recovered.  The 
"  third  part  "may,  as  we  have  seen,  vaguely  correspond  to  the  Roman  Empire. 

'  Liv.  xxxix.  46  ;  and  often  mentioned  among  Roman  portents.  Dion  Cassius  (Ixiii.  26) 
mentions  such  a  rain  in  a.d.  68,  and  says  that  '"the  blood" — really  a  natural  ph2noin':na, 
which  happened  at  Naples  »g  late  as  1869 — discoloured  even  the  streams. 


5l8  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

fold  reverberation  of  older  prophecies,  the  contemporary- 
phenomena  are  depicted  in  the  same  imagery  as  that  which 
had  been  used  in  their  day  by  the  Prophets  of  Judah  and 
Israel  to  describe  the  calamities  which  were  then  happening 
before  their  eyes?  Is  the  language  of  St.  John  about  contem- 
i)()rary  calamities  anything  like  so  hyperbolical  as  that  in  which 
the  Prophet  Joel  had  described  the  ravages  produced  by  a 
plague  of  locusts?  It  is  only  to  th^  tamer  and  colder  imagina- 
tion of  Teutonic  races  that  such  terms  sound  hyperbolical  if 
applied  to  anything  short  of  the  final  consummation. 

ii.  The  second  Angel  sounds,  and  something  which  resem- 
bles a  burning  mountain  is  flung  down  into  the  sea,  and  the 
third  part  of  the  sea  is  turned  into  blood,  and  the  third  part 
of  the  fish  die,  and  the  third  part  of  the  ships  is  destroyed. 
The  image  is  original.  St.  John  may  have  derived  this  terrific 
picture  of  "a  burning  mountain  cast  into  the  sea"  either  from 
seeing  the  lurid  flashes  that  leap  up  night  and  day  from  the 
cone  of  Stromboli,  which  he  may  have  passed  in  a  voyage  to 
Rome,  or  more  probably  from  seeing  on  the  horizon,  as  he 
gazed  from  Patmos,  the  dense  smoke  vomited  from  the  burn- 
ing island-mountain  of  Thera,  the  m.odern  Santorin.  The 
notion  of  seas  and  rivers  turned  into  blood  by  way  of  punish- 
ing the  guilty  is  well  known  to  the  imagery  of  the  Prophets 
and  Apocalyptic  writers.*  The  language  is  obviously  that  of 
daring  symbolism.  Taken  literally,  the  fall  of  the  burning 
mountain  resembles  no  event  ever  seen  or  known  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  Taken  metaphorically,  it  may  be  meant  to  de- 
pict great  calamities  connected  with  the  sea  and  ships,  deaths 
l>y  drowning  and  massacre  which  "incarnadined  the  multitu- 
dinous seas."  The  times  of  Nero  furnished  abundant  in- 
stances. Such  were  the  inundation  which  devastated  the 
coasts  of  Lydia,  and  the  destruction  of  fleets,  and  the  waves 
reddened  with  the  blood  of  men,  as  at  Joppa,  and  on  the 
coasts  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee.  At 
Joppa,  "the  sea  was  bloody  a  long  way,  and  the  maritime  parts 
were  full  of  dead  bodies;  and  the  number  of  bodies  that  were 
thus  thrown  out  of  the  sea  was  four  thousand  two  hundred."^ 
At  Taricheje  "one  might  see  the  Lake  of  Galilee  all  bloody, 
and  full  of  dead  bodies  .  .  .  and  the  shores  were  full  of 
shipwrecks  and  of  dead  bodies  all  swelled,  and  as  the  dead 
bodies  were  inflamed  by  the  sun  they  putrefied  and  corrupted 
the  air,  insomuch  that  the  misery  was  not  only  an  object  of 


Wisdun.  xi.  C,  7.  a  Jos.  B.  J.  iii.  9.  §  3. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  519 

commiseration  to  the  Jews,  but  to  those  that  hated  them  and 
had  been  the  authors  of  that  misery  .  .  .  and  the  number  of 
the  slain  was  six  thousand  five  hundred.'"  Considering, 
however,  ^hat  in  no  age  of  the  Church  has  there  been  any  ac- 
cepted identification  of  the  scenes  thus  pictured,  it  must  always 
remain  uncertain  whether  the  seer  meant  to  point  to  any  very 
definite  events.  His  object  may  have  been  to  express  in 
imaginative  emblems  broad  general  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions of  warning  and  judgment. 

iii.  The  third  Angel  sounded,  and  a  great  star  called  Ab- 
sinth "fell  upon  the  third  part  of  the  world's  waters,  and 
made  them  so  bitter  that  men  died  of  them."  Here  again  we 
are  in  the  abstract  region  of  apocalyptical  imagination  tinged 
by  reminiscences  of  the  Plagues  of  Egypt.  Alike  the  result 
and  the  agency  by  which  it  is  accomplished  are  indefinite. 
As  stars  are  the  images  of  rulers,  and  fallen  stars  of  rulers 
flung  down  from  heaven,^  the  symbol  may  dimly  express  the 
bitterness  and  terror  caused  by  the  overthrow  of  Nero  and  the 
ominous  failure  of  the  Julian  line.  The  details  of  the  image 
may  have  been  suggested  by  the  wicked  habit  of  poisoning 
the  waters  of  which  an  enemy  was  to  drink.  The  Romans 
excused  their  cruelty  at  Jerusalem  by  asserting  that  the  springs 
and  fountains  had  been  poisoned  by  the  Jews.^ 

iv.  The  fourth  Angel  sounded,  and  the  third  part  of  the 
sun  and  moon  and  stars,  and  day  and  night  are  smitten;*  in 
other  words — in  accordance  with  the  recognised  imagery  of 
A-pocalypse  and  Prophecy — ruler  after  ruler,  chieftain  after 
chieftain  of  the  Roman  Empire  and  the  Jewish  nation  was 
assassinated  and  ruined.  Gains,  Claudius,  Nero,  Galba, 
Otho,  Vitellius,  all  died  by  murder  or  suicide;  Herod  the 
Great,  Herod  Antipas,  Herod  Agrippa,  and  most  of  the 
Herodian  Princes,  together  with  not  a  few  of  the  leading  High 
Priests  of  Jerusalem,  perished  in  disgrace,  or  in  exile,  or  by 
violent  hands.  All  these  were  quenched  suns  and  darkened 
stars.  It  must  be  again  borne  in  mind  that  all  the  events  thus 
symbolised  are  not  meant  to  be  consecutive.  Although  pro- 
gressive, they  are  analogous  to,  or  even  identical  wnth,  those 
already  described.  The  plagues  of  the  trumpets  are  but  the 
deadlier  form  of  the  plagues  indicated  by  the  seals;  and  in  the 

1  Jos.  B.  y.  iii.  10,  §  9. 

2  "  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  oh  Lucifer,  Son  of  the  Morning  !  "  (Is.  xiv.  12). 

3  As  a  specimen  of  the  strange  diversities  of  interpreters,  I  may  mention  that  Kede  under- 
stands the  fallen  star  of  heretics  generally  ;  N.  de  Lyra  applies  it  to  Arius  and  Macedonius  ; 

Luther  thinks  that  it  represents Origen  !     RIede  understands  it  of  Romulus  Augustulus  ; 

Grotius  of  ''  that  Egyptian"  ;   Herder  of  the  Zealot  Kleazar  ;  ethers  of  Gregory  the  Grea^  I 

*  Matt.  xxiv.  29. 


520  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

vials  the  same  woes  reach  their  consummation.  So  far,  there- 
fore, as  the  effects  of  the  fourth  Trumpet  are  meant  to  be  his- 
torical, and  not  a  general  echo  of  our  Lord's  great  discourse 
about  the  Last  Things,  they  allude,  like  those  of  the  sixth 
Seal,  to  political  perils  and  revolutions  in  the  Roman  Empire, 
which  were  the  special  characteristic  of  that  epoch,  and  of 
which  every  comet  and  every  eclipse  and  every  unusual  tem- 
pest was  believed  to  be  a  threatening  sign.^ 

v.  The  trumpets  are  broken  into  divisions  of  four  and 
three.  To  prepare  for  the  remaining  three,  a  single  eagle^ 
flies  in  the  mid  region  of  Heaven,  screaming  with  loud  cry  a 
triple  "Woe!"  by  reason  of  the  Angel  trumpets  which  were 
yet  to  sound.  The  eagle  denotes  carnage; — "where  the  slain 
are  there  is  she."^  The  massacres  of  these  years  stained,  as 
we  have  seen,  both  the  land  and  sea.  The  furrows  of  earth 
were  red  with  slaughter;  the  waves  were  dyed  with  blood. 

The  fifth  Angel  sounds,  and  a  star  falls  to  earth,  to  whom 
is  given  the  key  of  the  abyss.  He  opens  the  abyss,  and  in 
the  issuing  smoke  which  dims  the  air  comes  forth  a  host  of 
scorpion-locusts,  which  are  forbidden  to  hurt  the  grass  or 
green  things  or  trees,  but  are  bidden,  for  a  space  of  five 
months,  to  torment  without  killing  all  who  have  not  the  seal 
of  God  on  their  forehead.  These  scorpion-locusts  resemble 
war-horses,  with  crowns  like  gold,  with  the  face  of  men,  the 
hair  of  women,  the  teeth  of  lions;  they  have  breastplates  as 
of  iron,  and  the  sound  of  their  wings  is  like  the  sound  of 
chariots,  or  of  horses  charging  to  battle.  The  anguish  they 
inflict  makes  men  desire  to  die;'  and  their  king  is  called 
Abaddon,  Apollyon,  or  the  Destroyer, 

The  fallen  star  may  again  be  meant  for  Nero;  but  on  the 
whole  I  agree  with  those  who  see  in  this  vision  a  purely  de- 
moniac host.  The  fallen  star  will  then  be  Satan,  of  whom 
the  Lord  said,  "I  saw  Satan  as  lightning  fallen  from  heaven."^ 
The  abyss  is  pre-eminently  the  abode  of  "demons.""  It  is 
their  speciality  to  cause  torment.'     They  are  as  appropriately 

'  Stars  arc  the  well-understood  Scripture  symbol  for  persons  in  authority  (Gen.  xxxvii.  9  ; 
Tcr.  IV.  23  ;  Ezck.  xxxii.  7,  8 ;  Isa.  xiii.  9,  10,  17).  The  symbol  is  a  natural  one.  Similarly, 
bhaksperc  tells  us  how — 

"  Certain  stars  shot  madly  from  theii  spheres 
Ti)  hear  the  sea-maid's  music.'' 
'  ^^''•.X'"-  ^3-     •*'^  V'ToD.  JsN  A,  U,  etc.  3  Hos.  viii.  i. 

Jcr.  m.  8  :  "  Death  shall  be  chosen  rather  than  life,  by  all  them  that  remain  of  this  evil 
family," 

*  I^uke  X.  18.  The  Book  of  Enoch  is  full  of  good  and  evil  angels,  who  arc  spoken  of  as 
•tars  (Lnoch  xvni.  13  ;  XXI  3,  etc.). 

•  Luke  viii.  31.  7  Matt.  xv.  22. 


THE   ArOCALVPSE.  $21 

symbolised  by  scorpion-locusts  as  by  frogs.'  Christ  had 
specially  prophesied  that  "this  wicked  generation"  should  be 
more  grievously  afflicted  by  demons.  As  time  went  on,  Rome 
and  Jerusalem — the  two  places  typically  prominent  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer — were  becoming  more  and  more  '  'a  habi- 
tation of  demons,  a  hold  of  every  unclean  spirit,  a  cage  of 
every  unclean  and  hateful  bird."''  In  Rome  the  loose,  dis- 
banded soldiery  and  the  scum  of  the  forum  had  degraded  so- 
ciety to  the  lowest  levels  of  infamy.  The  city  had  become  a 
foul  pool,  into  which  every  polluted  river  had  poured  its  dregs. 
In  Jerusalem,  according  to  the  emphatic  testimony  of  Jose- 
phus,  never  since  the  beginning  of  the  world  had  there  been 
any  generation  more  prolific  of  wickedness.  Stier  says,  "that 
in  the  period  between  the  Resurrection  and  the  Fall  of  Jeru- 
salem the  Jewish  nation  acted  as  \i possessed  by  seven  thousand 
demons.  The  whole  age  had  upon  it  a  stamp  of  the  infernal."^ 
Whether  in  this  general  picture  of  the  host  of  hell  swarming 
out  of  the  abyss,  there  is  any  direct  allusion  to  the  Idumeans, 
Zealots,  and  Sicarii  stinging  themselves  to  death  with  untold 
anguish,  like  scorpions  encircled  by  a  ring  of  fire; — or,  again, 
to  the  tumults,  bloodshed,  and  agonies  of  Rome,  the  fre- 
quency of  suicide,  and  the  many  tales  of  those  who  seemed  to 
long  for  death  in  vain — cannot  be  affirmed.  The  description 
of  the  scorpion-locusts  evidently  recalls  the  Egyptian  Plague, 
and  the  language  of  Joel,  and  the  fanciful  allusions  to  locusts 
which  abound  in  the  songs  and  proverbs  of  the  East.*  The 
five  months  may  point  to  the  summer  period,  which  is  the  time 
of  locust  plagues.^  But  two  circumstances  seem  to  show  that 
we  are  here  dealing  not  with  human  avengers  but  with  invisi- 
ble demons  of  the  air.     One  is  that  their  leader  is  the  Demon 


1  Rev.  xvi.  13.  Renan  may  be  right  in  saying  that  the  notion  of  frogs  and  locusts  coming 
from  the  abyss  may  have  been  partly  suggested  by  the  actual  phenomena  cJf  the  Solfatara,  or 
some  similar  district.  2  i^gv.  xviii.  2.  ^  Reden  Jesu,  ii.  1S7. 

4  Locusts  are  called  "  cai'alettP'  in  Naples.  Hermas  ( Fz'i-.  iv.  i)  sees  "a  great  beast 
....  and  fiery  locusts  coming  out  of  his  mouth,"  which  appears  to  be  [Vis.  iv.  3)  "'the  type 
of  the  great  tribulation  which  is  to  come."     Compare  Claudian's  description — 

"  Horret  apex  capitis  ;  medio  fera  lumina  surgunt 
Venice;  cognatus  dorso  durescit  amictus. 
Armavit  natura  cutem  dumique  rubentes 
Cuspidibus  parvis  multos  acuere  rubores." — [Epigr.  xxxiii.) 

6  Bochart,  Hierozoic.  ii.  495  ;  Plin.  H.  N.  ix.  50  :  "  latent  guifiis  fnensibiis."  If  any  one 
desires  to  see  once  more  the  endless  guesses  of  interpreters,  I  may  mention  that  Bede  explains 
the ''five  months"  of  human  life,  because  we  have  five  senses;  the  scorpions  are  heretics. 
•Vitringa  makes  the  five  months  mean  150  years— the  time  of  Gothic  domination.  Calovius  ex- 
plains them  of  the  prevalence  of  Arianism.  Bengal  makes  them  mean  79K  years— the  time 
of  the  Jewish  aftlictions  in  Persia  in  the  sixth  century.  Hofmann  refers  to  the  five  sins  ;  and 
Ziillig  to  the  time  of  the  Deluge  (Gen.  vii.  24) .  Some  consider  that  Apollyon  meant  Napoleon. 
BuUinger  explains  the  locust  of  the  monks  ;  Bellarmine  of  the  Protestants  ;  and  so  on.  And 
this  is  •'  Exegesis  .'" 


522  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Destroyer;  the  other  is  that  Christians,  and  Christians  only,  are 
expressly  exempted  from  their  powert  to  hurt. 

vi.  Two  woes  yet  remain.  A  voice  is  heard  from  the  horns 
of  the  golden  altar,  bidding  the  sixth  Angel  loose  the  four 
Angels  which  are  bound  at  the  great  river  Euphrates/  who 
were  prepared  for  the  due  time,  to  slay  the  third  part  of  men. 
Immediately  there  ride  forth  hvo  hu7idred  millio?i  /lorsefnen,, 
breathing  fire  and  smoke,  on  lion-headed  steeds,  armed  with 
breastplates  as  of  fire,  jacinth,  and  brimstone.  With  their 
flames  and  their  amphisbcena-stings  they  slay  the  third  part  of 
men; — and  yet  the  rest  do  not  repent.' 

It  is  probable  that  the  facts  which  loom  large  and  lurid 
through  this  blood-red  mist  of  Apocalyptic  symbols  are  the 
swarms  of  Orientals  who  gathered  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem in  the  train  of  Titus,  ^  and  the  overwhelming  Parthian 
host  which  was  expected  to  avenge  the  ruin  of  Nero.  It  was 
a  popular  belief  that  he  was  still  living;  that  he  had  taken 
refuge  in  the  East;  or  that  in  any  case  Tiridates,  who  greatly 
admired  him,  or  Vologeses,  whose  relations  with  him  were 
very  amicable,  w^ould  bring  him  back  with  a  whirlwind  of  tri- 
umphant horsemen.'  These  great  Eastern  Empires  took  deep 
and  dangerous  interest  in  the  affairs  of  Rome.  "Vologeses, 
Kin,g  of  the  Parthians,"  says  Suetonius,  "had  sent  ambassa- 
dors to  the  Senate  about  the  renewal  of  amity,  and  earnestly 
made  this  further  request,  that  the  memory  of  Nero  should 
be  held  in  honour.  In  my  youth,  twenty  years  after,  when  a 
false  Nero  had  risen,  his  name  was  so  popular  among  the  Par- 
thians that  he  was  strenuously  assisted  and  with  difficulty  given 
up."*  Both  Suetonius  and  Tacitus  relate  that  Vologeses 
offered  to  assist  Vespasian  with  forty  thousand  mounted  ar- 
<:hers.*  One  of  the  circumstances  which  most  deeply  aroused 
the  indignation  of  Titus  against  the  Jews  was  that  they  had 
sent  embassies  for  assistance  to  their  kinsmen  beyond  the  Eu- 
phrates.^ In  the  Sibylline  Oracles  and  in  the  Asce7ision  of 
Jsaiah  we  find  distinct  and  repeated  allusion  to  some  expected 


*  These  four  bound  angels  have  never  been  explained.  .Some  refer  them  to  the  Angel  princeb 
of  the  Assyrians,  Habylonians,  Medes,  and  Persians.  Some  to  the  four  Roman  stations  on 
the  Euphrates.  Hound  angels  would  recall  to  St.  John's  readers  the  notion  of  evil  spirits. 
Comp.  Jobit  viii.  3  ;  Matt.  xii.  43-45. 

'  "  Kt  gravis  in  gcmiimm  surgciis  caput  amphisbaena"  (Luc.  Phars.  ix.  719). 

•  Jos.  li.  J,  iii.  1,  §  3  ;  4,  §  2.  Four  kings — Antiochus,  Sohcmus,  Agrippa,  and  Malchus 
— contributed  archers  and  horsemen.  The  latter,  who  was  an  Arabian  Prince,  sent  5,000 
archers  and  1,000  cavalry. 

<  .See  Suet.  Ntro,  13,  30,  47,  57  ;  Carm.  Sib.  iv.  1 19-147  ;   v.  93,  ^n^  passim  ;  viii.  70,  etc. 
,  ^■'^n'P-  ''"c    //.  i.  2.  «  Tac.  //.  iv.  m  ;  Suet.  Vesp.  6. 

'  Jos.  li.  J.  vi.  6,  S  2.  -    >  /- 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  523 

catastrophe  from  the  realm  of  Parthia.*  The  metaphor  will 
then  closely  resemble  that  of  Jer.  li.  27,  "Cause  the  horses  to 
come  up  as  rough  caterpillars;  prepare  against  her  the  nations 
with  the  Kings  of  the  Medes."  *  These  vaticinations  do  not 
belong  in  the  least  to  the  essence  or  heart  of  the  Apocalypse. 
They  are  but  passing  illustrations  of  the  great  principles — the 
hopes  and  warnings — which  it  was  meant  to  inculcate.  War- 
riors from  the  Euphrates  had  their  share  in  the  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem; and  though  Parthian  horsemen  did  not  sweep  down 
from  the  East  at  that  time  against  pagan  Rome,  yet  in  due 
time  vengeance  did  fall  on  her,  and  in  due  time  the  countless 
hosts  which  swarmed  from  beyond  the  Euphrates  may  well  be 
said  to  have  destroyed  a  third  of  men,  and  yet  to  have  left  the 
rest  impenitent  for  their  crimes. 

SECTION   IV. 

AN    EPISODE. 

Then  follows  another  pause. 

A  mighty  Angel  arrayed  with  cloud,  and  with  a  rainbow 
encircling  a  sunlike  face,  descends  from  Heaven.  His  feet 
are  like  pillars  of  fire,  and  he  sets  one  on  the  land  and  one  on 
the  sea.^  A  little  open  book  is  in  his  hand,  and  when  he  speaks 
in  his  lion-voice  seven, thunders  utter  their  voices.  But  the 
seer  is  forbidden  to  write,  and  it  is,  therefore,  absurd  to  con- 
jecture wha^  they  uttered.  Then  the  Angel,  lifting  his  right 
hand  to  Heaven,  swears  by  the  Almighty  Creator  that  no  fur- 
ther time  shall  intervene,  but  that,  at  the  trumpet-blast  of  the 
seventh  Angel,  the  mystery  of  God  shall  be  finished.^  The 
seer  is  bidden  to  take  the  book  and  eat  it.  In  his  mouth  it  is 
sweet  as  honey;  in  his  belly  it  is  bitter.  He  is  then  bidden  to 
prophesy  again  concerning  many  peop,les,  nations,  tongues, 
and  kings. 

This  magnificent  episode  tends  to  deepen  and  heighten  the 


^  "Towards  evening  war  will  arise,  and  the  great  fugitive  of  Rome  (Nero)  will  raise  the 
sword,  and  ^vitk  7)iany  viyriads  of  me/i.  ride  thyougk  the  Euphrates'"  {Carin.  Sib. 
iv.  116,  seq.).  In  the  fifth  book  of  Sibylline  verses  Nero  is  called  "the  dread  serpent,"  who 
though  vanished  would  return,  and  give  himself  out  as  God  {Id.  v.  93,  and/^JJiw).  Nero  is 
the  "  godless  king,"  and  murderer  of  his  mother,  of  the  Vision  of  Isaiah,  who  shall  be  destroyed 
after  1,335  days.  Jerome,  on  Dan.  i.  28,  says  that  many  Christians  expected  the  return  of 
Nero  as  Antichrist. 

2  Since,  in  xi.  3,  he  says,  "  I  will  give  power  to  my  witnesses,"  we  may  perhaps  see  in  this 
mighty  Angel  a  representation  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  descriptions  correspond  with  those  of 
the  first  (i.  15)  and  fourth  Angel  (iv.  3)  ;  see  too  Dan.  xii.  i.  Nic.  de  Lyra  supposes  that  the 
Angel  is  meant  for  the  Emperor  Justinian  ;  Luther,  for  the  Pope  ;  and  l?ede,  for  St.  John 
himself !     But  it  is  worse  than  useless  to  record  the  vagaries  of  Apocalyptic  interpretation. 

3  This  is  a  reference  to  vi.  ii,  where  the  souls  of  the  martyrs  are  bidden  to  rest,  "  still  a 
little  time." 


524  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

expectation  of  what  the  seventh  Trumpet  is  to  bring.  The 
incident  of  eating  the  roll  is  also  found  in  Ezek.  ii.  9;  iii.  3/ 
and  the  command  to  seal  up  the  "utterance"  of  the  seven 
thunders  resembles  those  given  to  Daniel,  in  Dan.  viii.  26; 
xii.  4 — 9.  The  general  meaning  seems  to  be  that  much  of  the 
future  is  to  be  left  in  deep  mystery,  and  that  the  messages  yet 
to  be  delivered  are  of  mingled  import,  sweet  with  consolations, 
yet  bitter  with  awful  judgments.  The  little  book  is  intended  to 
contain  the  issues  of  the  seventh  Trumpet,  They  are  as  yet 
undeveloped.  Much  of  the  vision  hitherto  has  referred  to  the 
past.  It  has  explained  the  meaning  of  the  signs  in  the  physical 
and  political  world  which  pointed  to  the  Coming  Judgment. 
It  has  made  clear  to  believers  that  the  woes  which  had  shaken 
and  were  still  shaking  the  earth  were  the  beginning  of  the 
Palingenesia.  What  the  seer  has  now  to  foreshadow  is  the 
Coming  Dawn  itself. 

His  first  warning  prophecies  are  addressed  to  the  Jews. 
The  judgments  of  the  first  six  Seals  affect  the  fourth  part  of 
all  men  alike — Christians,  Jews,  heathens.  Before  the  open- 
ing of  the  seventh  Seal,  the  servants  of  God — that  is,  all  the 
members  of  the  Christian  Church — are  sealed  upon  their  fore- 
heads. The  judgments  of  the  first  six  Trumpets  affect,  there- 
fore, only  the  Jews  and  the  heathens.  But  now,  before  the 
actual  sounding  of  the  seventh  Trumpet,  the  Jews  are  won  to 
God  (xi.  13).  St.  John,  like  St.  Paul,  sees  that  it  is  only  "in 
part"  that  "blindness  hath  befallen  Israel,"  and  only  "until 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in."  Consequently,  the 
judgments  of  the  first  six  Vials,  though  they  extend  over  the 
whole  earth,  fall  only  upon  the  heathen.  The  seventh  Vial 
brings  upon  all  the  unconverted  the  final  judgment. 

So  that  before  the  seventh  Trumpet  sounds  the  seer  is 
bidden  to  measure  the  Temple,  and  altar,  and  worshippers  with 
a  measuring  reed,^  exclusively  of  the  court  which  has  been 
given  over  to  the  Gentiles,  who  are  to  trample  down  the  Holy 
City  for  forty-two  months — i.e.^  three  and  a  half  years.' 
During  these  twelve  hundred  and  sixty  days,  the  Two  Wit- 

•  Comp.  Jcr.  XV.  i6,  "Thy  words  were  found,  and  I  did  eat  them."  The  contents  of  the 
roll  were  sweet  in  anticipation,  because  he  had  hoped  to  read  in  them  the  perfect  conversion 
of  Jerusalem  ;  but  were  bitter  when  their  real  import  was  known. 

'■'  Kzck.  xl.  :  Zcch.  iv. 

'  Dan.  vm.  13  ;  1  Mace.  iii.  45,  51  ;  iv.  60;  Luke  xxi.  24.  "Jenisalem  shall  be  trodden 
down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled."  The  period  3)^  years.  42 
months,  or  i,a6o  days  (the  lialf  of  seven  years),  is  often  found  in  Scripture  in  connexion  with 
judgments.  Dan.  vii.  25  (Antiochus  Kpiphanes  rages  for  "a  time,  times,  and  half  a  time") ; 
IX.  27  (the  oblation  ceases  for  half  a  week) ;  xii.  7, 11  ;  comp.  Luke  xxi.  24  ;  James  v.  17  (time 
of  drought  at  Elijah's  prayer). 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  525 

nesses  are  to  prophesy  in  sackcloth.  They  resemble  the  two 
olive  trees  and  the  two  lamp-stands  of  the  Temple.'  With 
fire  from  their  mouth  they  can  destroy  their  enemies.'  They 
can  shut  up  the  Heavens  and  smite  the  earth  with  plague. 
When  their  testimony  is  over,  the  Wild  Beast  out  of  the  abyss 
shall  kill  them.  Their  dead  bodies  shall  lie  for  three  and  a 
half  days  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  the  spiritual  Sodom'  and 
Egypt,  where  their  Lord  was  crucified.  Men  of  all  nations 
shall  rejoice  over  their  corpses,*  and  will  not  suffer  them  to  be 
buried.^  Then  the  breath  of  life  from  God  shall  enter  into 
them.  To  the  terror  of  all  they  shall  stand  upon  their  feet,** 
and  at  the  bidding  of  a  voice  from  Heaven  shall  ascend  in 
cloud.  Then  a  great  earthquake,  in  which  seven  thousand 
shall  perish,  shall  shake  down  a  tenth  of  the  city.  The  rest 
of  its  mhabitants  repent  in  their  terror,  and  give  glory  to  the 
God  of  Heaven. 

Every  item  of  the  symbolism,  as  will  have  been  seen  from 
the  references,  is  borrowed  from  ancient  prophecy:  and  yet 
neither  in  its  details  nor  in  its  general  import  is  the  vision 
clear.  There  neither  is  nor  ever  has  been  in  Christendom,  in 
any  age,  or  among  any  school  of  interpreters,  the  smallest 
agreement,  or  even  approach  to  an  agreement,  as  to  the  events 
which  the  seer  had  in  view. 

What  is  the  object  of  the  measuring?  Judging  from  Eze- 
kiel  and  Zechariah,  we  should  say  that  it  is  for  construction  and 
preservation;  but  in  other  passages  the  "stretching  out  of  a 
line,"  or  "setting  a  plumbline,"  or  "measuring  with  a  line," 
are  emblems  of  punishment  or  destruction.'  As  both  destruc- 
tion and  preservation  follov/,  the  question  is  not  easy  to  an- 
swer. 

Again,  is  the  seer  now  dealing  with  more  or  less  definite 
history,  whether  contemporary  or  impending,  or  are  the  limits 
of  past,  present,  and  future  obliterated  in  illustrating  the 
Divine  principles  of  the  Eternal  Now? 

Again,  does  the  vision  refer  to  the  actual  Jerusalem,  or  to 
Jerusalem  as  an  emblem  of  the  whole  Jewish  race? 

Once  more,   who  are  the  'Two  Witnesses?     .Were  there 


1  Zech.  iv.  3,  ii. 

"  2  Kins^s  i.  lo  ;  Jer.  v.  14;  Ecclus.  xlviii.  i.  "Then  stood  up  Elias  the  Prophet  as  fire 
and  his  word  burned  like  a  lamp." 

3  Jerusalem  (Sodom)  ;  Isa.  i.  10  ;  iii.  9  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  14  ;  Ezek.  xvi.  48,  49.  There  may  be  a 
passing  allusion  to  the  detestable  crimes  of  the  Zealots,  as  recorded  by  Josephus,  B.  J.  iv.  6, 

■•  Congratulations  of  the  enemies  of  God.     Heb.  viii.  10,  12  ;  Esth.  ix.  19,  22. 

6  I  Kings  xiii.  22  :  Isa.  xiv.  18  ;  Tobit  i.  17.  *  Ezek.  xxxvii.  10. 

'  Lam.  ii.  7,  8  ;  Isa.  xxxiv.  11  ;  Amos  vii.  6,  9  ;  2  Sam.  viii.  s  ;  2  Kings  xxi.  12,  13. 


526  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  or  during  the  general  epoch  of 
its  imminent  doom,  two  witnesses  for  God  and  for  Christ,  who 
in  their  characteristics  recalled  Moses  and  Elijah?  Or  are 
Moses  and  Elijah  themselves  symbolically  described?  Was 
the  seer  thinking  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord?'  or  of 
the  two  Christian  martyrs,  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  and 
James  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem?  or  of  two  Christian  witnesses 
of  whom  no  history  is  recorded?'  or  of  the  murder  of  men  like 
Zechariah,  son  of  Berachiah?  or  is  he  indeed  only  thinking  of 
Enoch  and  Elijah,^  according  to  the  almost  unanimous  tradi- 
tion of  the  early  Church?^  Or,  again,  widening  the  symbol  of 
Jerusalem  to  apply  to  the  whole  Jewish  and  Christian  Church, 
is  he  thinking  of  St.  James  and  St.  Peter?  or  even  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  as  the  two  most  illustrious  victims  of  the  Nero- 
nian  persecution?  None  of  these  guesses  are  certain;  and 
perhaps  the  same  may  be  said  of  a  solution  which  has  some- 
times occurred  to  me,  that  the  Two  Witnesses  represent  Jew- 
ish and  Gentile  converts  to  the  Church.  Is  the  description  of 
their  unburied  corpses  and  subsequent  ascension  a  symbol  of 
the  true  fulfilment  of  their  prophecies,  the  vindication  of  the 
truths  they  taught,  the  posthumous  honours  paid  to  their 
memories?  Are  we  to  understand  the  vision  literally,  or 
ideally,  or  allegorically?    None  can  tell  us;  and  who  shall  say? 

Lastly,  in  the  earthquake  and  the  overthrow  of  a  tenth 
part  of  the  city,  and  the  resultant  terror  and  repentance,  are 
we  to  see  a  picture  of  the  anticipated  results  from  the  rapidly 
approaching  siege  of  Jerusalem,  or  do  they  shadow  forth  the 
fate  of  the  besieged,  and  the  effect  of  their  awful  judgment 
upon  the  minds  of  their  coreligionists  throughout  the  world?" 

These  questions  have  never  been  satisfactorily  answered, 
and  perhaps  never  will  be.  We  must  be  content  to  leave  them 
in  the  half-light  in  which  the  uncertainty  of  nineteen  Christian 
centuries  has  left  them  hitherto.  There  are  no  two  writers  of 
any  importance  who  even  approximately  agree  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  symbols.  Those  symbols  were  probably  coloured 
not  only  by  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  by  actual 
events  in  the  siege.    Such,  for  ihstance,  was  the  terrific  storm, 

'  Malt.  xvii.  9-13.  2  Compare  Rev.  xi.  3  with  Acts  i.  8. 

t  e  u  ^'"•'^P<^'  of  Nicodemus,  Enoch  says  of  himself  and  Elijah,  "  We  are  to  live  until  the 
end  of  the  world  ;  and  ///<•«  7ve  are  to  be  sent  by  God  to  resist  Antichrist,  and  to  be  slain 

7  /'„•  fl'"^  "-^'''.^  ^^'^''^  '^'^■y^  ^0  ^"^  aS<^in,  and  to  be  caught  uj>  in  clouds  to  meet  the 
Lord''  (C;osp.  Nicod.  ii.  9). 

*  A'i  preserved  in  the  Commentary  of  Andreas,  Bp.  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  (comp. 
l.ospcl  of  NK.odemiis  XXV.).  The  view  derives  some  .sanction  from  Luke  xvi.  31  ;  and  the 
IranshKuration,  Matt.  xvii.  3. 

»  Douhtlcis  the  imagery  is  coloured  by  reminiscences  of  llic  events  mentioned  in  Matt,  xxvii. 

51  ;    XXVUI.   3. 


THE  APOCALYPSE.  527 

the  bursts  of  rain,  the  earthquake,  "the  amazing  concussions 
and  bellowingsof  the  earth,"  during  which  the  Idumeans  were 
admitted,  and  in  which  Josephus  says  that  "the  whole  system 
of  the  universe  seemed  to  be  in  disorder."^  In  the  subsequent 
massacres,  the  outer  Temple — that  is,  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles 
— "was  all  overflowed  with  blood, ' '  and  eight  thousand  five  hun- 
dred corpses  lay  about  its  precincts.  The  insults  to  the  unburied 
witnesses  recall  for  a  moment  the  fate  of  the  younger  Hanan 
and  the  priest  Jesus,  whose  bodies  were  "cast  out  naked  and 
unburied  to  be  the  food  of  dogs  and  wild  beasts,"  but  whose 
reputation  was  so  thoroughly  vindicated  in  the  eyes  of  their 
countrymen,  that  Josephus  pronounces  a  high  eulogy  upon 
them,  and  attributes  the  final  doom  of  the  city  to  the  guilt  in- 
curred by  their  murderers.^  The  three  and  a  half  years,  again, 
correspond  with  the  actual  length  of  the  siege,  together  with 
the  special  horrors  by  which  it  was  preluded.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  know  of  nothing  which  corresponds  to  the  fall  of 
only  the  tenth  part  of  the  city,  or  to  any  repentance  on  the 
part  of  its  inhabitants.  Every  interpretation  seems  to  be  beset 
with  insuperable  difficulties.  No  one  school  of  commentators 
has  been  more  successful  than  its  rivals  in  furnishing  an  his- 
torical solution.  May  not  this  be  a  sign  that  no  exact  histori- 
cal counterpart  to  these  symbols  was  contemplated  by  the 
seer,  and  that  he  is  only  moving  in  the  region  of  ideal  antici- 
pation in  order  to  use  material  symbols  a.s  the  vehicle  for  eter- 
nal principles?  He  who  has  learnt  the  lesson,  "not  by  po^yer 
nor  by  might,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts;"  he 
who  feels  that  the  downfall  of  Evil  and  the  ultimate  triumph 
of  Good  has  all  the  certainty  of  an  inevitable  law; — he  who  is 
w^aiting  for  the  consolation  of  the  spiritual  Israel  and  the 
gathering  of  all  nations  into  one  flock  under  one  shepherd  at 
the  Coming  of  the  Lord, — he,  it  may  be,  has  learnt  more  of 
the  inner  spirit  and  essential  meaning  of  the  Apocalypse  than 
if  he  followed  all  the  flickering  lights  of  Exegesis  which  have 
led  men  into  the  marshes  of  rival  fictions  from  the  days  of 
St.  Victorinus  down  to  the  present  time. 

It  has  been  often  asserted  that  St.  John  meant  to  indicate 
the  preservation  of  the  Temple,  in  accordance  with  the  general 
expectation  and  what  was  believed  to  be  the  express  wish  of 
Titus.  But  he  does  not  say  so.  The  measuring-rod  may  have 
been,  as  we  have  seen,  a  mark  of  coming  overthrow.  There 
is  indeed  an  absolutely  fatal  argument  against  the  notion  that 


Jos.  B.  y.  iv.  5,  §  5.  2  Ibid.  iv.  5,  §  2. 


528  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

St.  John  anticipated  that  the  Temple  would  be  preserved.  It 
is  that  our  Lord  on  Olivet,  in  the  very  discourse  on  which  the 
Apocalypse  is  an  expanded  and  symbolic  commentary,  had 
declared  without  the  least  ambiguity,  and  in  exact  accordance 
with  the  result,  that  of  that  Temple  not  one  stone  should  be 
left  upon  another.  St.  John  indicates  the  conversion  of  the 
Jews,  not  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem. 

Ikit  all  that  we  cannot  understand  of  St.  John's  symbolism 
belongs — the  very  failure  of  the  Christian  world  in  any  age  to 
understand  it  is  a  sufficient  proof  that  it  belongs — to  the  sec- 
ondary, the  subordinate,  the  less  essential  elements  of  the 
book.  It  must  always  be  more  than  doubtful  whether,  in  the 
very  small  fraction  of  the  book  wiiich  touches  on  the  yet  earthly 
and  historic  future,  St.  John  intended  to  deal  with  specific 
vaticinations.  At  any  rate,  the  meaning  and  literal  accom- 
plishment of  such  vaticinations  is  irrevocably  lost  for  us,  and, 
in  point  of  fact,  has  never  been  known  to  any  age  of  the 
Church — not  even  to  the  earliest,  not  even — so  far  as  our  re- 
cords go — to  Irenaeus,  the  hearer  of  Poiycarp,  or  to  Polycarp, 
the  hearer  of  St.  John.  What  we  can  see  in  the  whole  vision 
of  the  Holy  City  and  the  Two  Witnesses,  is  a  prophecy  of  the 
ultimate  conversion  of  the  vast  mass  of  Israel,  and  the  final 
triumph  of  Christian  testimony  over  every  opposing  force; 
further  than  this,  there  is  nothing  to  be  found  in  any  com- 
mentary but  fancy  and  guesswork,  and  arbitrary  combinations, 
which  may  seem  irrefragable  to  those  who  indulge  in  them, 
but  which  have  not  succeeded  in  convincing  a  handful  of 
readers. 

Then,  at  last,  the  seventh  Angel  sounds.  There  is  a  shout 
of  jubilee  in  Heaven,  because  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  have 
become  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  Christ.  The 
Jews  are  now  converted.  There  remains  nothing  but  the^ 
judgment  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  Coming  of  Christ  in  the 
close  of  the  aeon.  The  earthly  Temple  has  at  last  disappeared. 
In  the  Heaven  is  seen  the  Temple  of  God,  open  even  to  the 
Holiest  Place,  to  which  there  may  now  be  universal  access  at 
all  times,  through  the  blood  of  Christ. 

SECTION  V. 

THE   WILD    UEAST   FROM    THE    SEA. 

But,  as  though  to  compensate  for  the  uncertain  idealism  of 
the  last  Vision,  the  meaning  of  the  next  Vision  is  retrospec- 
tive, and,  in  its  main  outlines,  perfectly  clear. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  529 

A  woman,  arrayed  with  the  sun,  with  the  moon  beneath 
her  feet,  and  a  crown  of  twelve  stars  around  her  head,  brings 
forth  a  man-child.  A.  huge  scarlet  dragon,  with  ten  horns  and 
seven  diademed  heads,  whose  tail  sweeps  after  it  the  third  part 
of  the  stars  to  the  earth,'  stands  before  her  to  devour  the  child 
the  moment  it  is  born,  since  the  child  is  to  rule  the  nations 
with  a  rod  of  iron.  But  the  child  is  snatched  up  to  the  throne 
of  God,  and  the  woman  flies  into  the  wilderness,  where  she  is 
to  be  nourished  for  1,260  days. 

All  agree  as  to  the  interpretation.  The  star-crowned 
woman  is  the  ideal  Church  of  Israel.'  The  child  she  brings 
forth  is  a  symbol,  partly  of  the  Messiah,  partly  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church."  The  scarlet  dragon  is  an  emblem  of  Satan,  with 
the  attributes  of  the  world-power,  as  specially  represented  by 
the  Roman  Empire — of  which  a  dragon  was  one  of  the  later 
insignia.  A  dragon  or  serpent  (for  between  the  two  words 
there  is  no  real  distinction)  was  also  the  apt  inspirer  for  an 
Emperor  who  was  believed  to  wear  as  an  amulet  a  serpent's 
skin,  and  whose  life,  according  to  popular  legend,  had  been 
saved  by  a  serpent  when  he  was  an  infant  in  the  cradle.*  Its 
seven  heads  and  ten  horns  are  seven  Emperors"  and  ten  Pro- 
vincial Governors.  But  no  power  of  legions,  no  violence  of 
martyrdoms,  can  slay  the  infant  Church  of  Christ.  The 
Mother  Church,  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  which,  as  it  were, 
rocks  the  cradle  of  Gentile  Christianity,  is  saved  alike  from 
Idumeans,  and  Zealots,  and  the  Roman  armies  which  advance 
to  besiege  the  Holy  City.  She  flies  to  the  mountains;  to  the 
wilderness;  to  the  secure  and  desolate  region  of  Pella,  in 
which  town,  on  the  edge  of  the  deserts  of  Arabia, °  at  an  early 
period  of  the  impending  siege,  the  Christians  took  refuge,  in 
accordance  with  their  Lord's  command.^  They  thus  escaped 
the  horrors  of  the  three  and  a  half  years  which  elapsed  be- 
tween A.D.  67,  when  Vespasian  began  his  dreadful  work  in 
Judoea,  and  September,  a.d.  70,  when  the  city  and  Temple 
perished  in  blood  and  flame. 

The  attempts  of  the  dragon  are  practically  foredoomed. 


1  Dan.  viii.  lo  (of  Antiochus  Epiphanes).  ^  Isa.  Ixvi.  7,  8. 

3  The  narrative  is  doubtless  coloured  by  the  perils  and  escapes  of  the  Infant  Christ  (Matt, 
ii.  11-15).  *  Suet.  A'Vr.  6. 

*  The  "seven"  may  include  Julius  Caesar  ;  or,  excluding  him,  may  include  Otho.  In  the 
days  of  Julius,  however,  the  name  I»if>erator  had  not  acquired  its  exclusive  significance,  and 
he  never  had  the  tide  of  Princeps.  Apocalyptic  symbolism,  dealing  in  mystic  numbers,  docs 
not  gready  trouble  itself  with  these  minor  details.  'J'hus  the  seven  heads  of  the  Beast  serve 
alike  to  symbolise  seven  hills  and  seven  Emperors.  The  Dragon  is  at  once  Satan  and  the  rep- 
resentative of  Satan — the  Empire  of  Pagan  Rome. 

6  Josephus  says  of  Perea,  "  its  eastern  limits  reach  to  Arabia"  [B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  3).  Pella  is 
now  Tabakat  Fahil.  ">  Matt.  xxiv.  16  ;  Luke  .\xi.  21. 

34 


530  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Michael  and  his  Angels  have  warred  against  him,  and  flung 
him  down  to  earth.  There  is  no  place  for  him  in  Heaven  as 
an  accuser  of  the  brethren,  because  the  blood  of  the  Lamb 
and  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  prevails  against  him.  His  great 
wrath  must  be  confined  to  earth,  and  that  only  for  a  little 
time.' 

He  rages  against  the  sun-clad  woman,  but  she  escapes 
from  him  into  the  wilderness,  with  the  two  great  eagle-wings 
of  divine  protection. ■  There  may  have  been,  and  doubtless 
was,  an  attempt  to  pursue  and  murder  the  flying  Christians. 
We  know  that  desertion  from  the  city  was  checked  by  the 
most  violent  measures.  Had  any  details  of  the  flight  to  Pella 
been  preserved  to  us,  we  should  understand  what  is  exactly 
meant  by  the  dragon  vomiting  out  of  his  mouth  water  as  a 
river  that  she  might  be  swept  away,  and  by  the  earth  helping 
her  and  swallowing  the  river.  When  Vespasian  sent  Placidus 
to  chase  the  Jewish  fugitives  from  Gadara,  they  were  stopped 
by  the  swollen  waters  of  the  Jordan,  and  being  compelled  to 
hazard  a  battle,  were  driven  in  multitudes  into  the  river,  and 
15,000  of  them  perished,'  It  is  very  probable  that  some  such 
obstacle  may  have  impeded  the  flight  of  the  Christians,  and 
that  while  they  were  enabled  to  escape  safely  by  some  mani- 
festation of  special  Providence,  many  of  their  pursuers  perished 
in  the  swollen  stream. 

The  next  Vision  is  not  only  plain,  but  must  henceforth  be 
regarded  as  so  certain  in  its  significance  as  to  furnish  us  with 
z,  point  de  repere  for  all  Apocalyptic  interpretations.  It  is  the 
Vision  of  the  Wild  Beast  from  the  Sea;  and  beyond  all  shadow 
of  doubt  or  uncertainty,  the  Wild  Beast  from  the  Sea  is  meant 
as  a  symbol  of  the  Emperor  Nero.  Here,  at  any  rate,  St. 
John  has  neglected  no  single  means  by  which  he  could  make 
his  meaning  clear  without  deadly  peril  to  himself  and  the 
Christian  Church. 

He  describes  this  Wild  Beast  by  no  less  than  sixteen  dis- 
tinctive marks,  and  then  all  but  tells  us  in  so  many  words  the 
name  of  the  person  whom  it  is  intended  to  symbolise. 

These  distinctive  marks  are  as  follows: — 

I.  //  rises  from  the  sea; — by  which  is  perhaps  indicated 
not  only  a  Western  power,  and  therefore,  to  a  Jew,  a  power 


,.  J  Co'Tip^ '."'<«  X.  18.  "I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fallen  from  heaven,"  John  xH.  31. 
Now  IS  the  judgment  of  this  world,  now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out"  (comp.  i 
John  III.  8). 

'  For  c.-iglcs'  wings  as  the  symbol  of  the  Divine  protection,  sec  Ex.  xix.  4  ;  Deut.  xxxii,  11. 

>  Jos.  b.  J.  IV.  7,  §  s. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  53 1 

beyond   the  sea,'  but  perhaps  especially  one  connected  with 
the  sea-washed  peninsula  of  Italy.'' 

2.  //  is  a  Beast  like  one  of  DafiieV s  four  Beasts^  but  more 
portentous  and  formidable.  Daniel's  four  Beasts  were  the 
Chaldean  lion,  the  Median  bear,  the  Persian  panther,  and  the 
Beast  of  Greek  dominion,  of  which  the  ten  horns  represent  the 
ten  successors  of  Alexander,''  and  the  little  horn  represents 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  St.  John's  Beast  being  the  all-compre- 
hensive Roman  power,  is  a  combination  of  Daniel's  Beasts. 
It  is  a  panther,  with  bear's  feet  and  a  lion's  mouth.  It  has 
seven  heads,''  which  indicate  (in  the  apparently  arbitrary  but 
perfectly  normal  vagueness  of  Jewish  apocalyptic  symbolism) 
both  the  seven  hills  of  Rome  and  seven  kings. ^  The  Beast  is 
a  symbol  interchangeably  of  the  Roman  empire  and  of  the 
Emperor.  In  fact,  to  a  greater  degree  than  at  any  period  of 
history,  the  two  were  one.  Roman  history  had  dwindled 
down  into  a  personal  drama.  The  Roman  Emperor  could  say 
with  literal  truth,  "" L' Etat  c' est  ??ioi/'  And  a  Wild  Beast  was 
a  Jew's  natural  s3'mbol  either  for  a  Pagan  kingdom  or  for  its 
autocrat.  When  St.  Paul  was  delivered  from  Nero,  or  his 
representative,  he  says  quite  naturally  that  "he  was  delivered 
out  of  the  mouth  of  the  lion"  (2  Tim.  iv.  17;  comp.  Heb.  xi. 
2,:^).  When  he  is  alluding  to  his  struggles  with  the  mob  and 
their  leaders  at  Ephesus,  he  describes  it  as  "fighting  with 
wild  beasts"  (i  Cor.  xv.  32).  When  Marsyas  announced  to 
Agrippa  I.  the  death  of  Tiberius,  he  did  so  in  the  words, 
"the  lion  is  dead."^  Princes,  as  well  as  kingdoms,  had  been 
described  under  the  same  symbol  by  the  Old  'I'estament  pro- 
phets.'' Esther,  in  the  Jewish  legends,  was  said  to  have  spoken 
of  Xerxes  as  "the  lion."  Lactantius  speaks  of  Nero  as  a 
tam  mala  bestia.^  But,  besides  all  these  reasons,  w^hich  made 
the  symbol  so  easily  intelligible,  Renan  may  be  right  in  con- 
jecturing that  there  was  yet  another.  It  was  that,  on  an  oc- 
casion which  was  exceptionally  infamous  even  for  Nero,  he 
had  been  disguised  as  a  ivild  beast ^  and  in  that  disguise  had  been 


1  In  the  Sihylline  Oracles  (iii.  176)  the  beast  rises  "  from  the  Western  sea."  In  2  Esdras 
xi.  1  the  Eagle  (Rome)  comes_/>-£;w  the  sea. 

2  Such  is  the  not  improbable  conjecture  of  Ewald.  From  xvii.  15  we  might  explain  it  of 
"the  peoples,  and  multitudes,  and  nations,  and  tongues,"  over  which  Rome  ruled.  In  Shab- 
bath,  f.  56  b,  we  are  told  that  when  Solomon  married  Pharaoh's  daughter,  Gabriel  thrust  a 
reed  into  the  sea,  and  of  the  mud  formed  an  island,  on  which  Rome  was  built. 

3  The  Diadochi,  as  they  were  called.     See  Grote,  xii.  362. 

"*  Comp.  Orac.  Sibyll.  iii.  176,  where  also  the  many-headed  beast  is  Rome. 

^  Rev.  xvii.  9,  10. 

*  Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  6,  §  lo.  ''  Ezek.  xix,  1-9. 

^  The  Sibyllists  call  Nero  "  the  Beast."     De  Mart.  Persec.  2. 


532  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

let  loose  from  a  cage  and  personated  the  furies  of  a  tiger  ot 
panther.' 

3.  This  wild  beast  of  Heathen  Power  has  ten  horns,  wlych 
represent  the  ten  main  provinces  of  Imperial  Rome.^  It  has 
the  power  of  the  dragon — that  is,  it  possesses  the  Satanic 
dominion  of  the  "prince  of  the  power  of  the  air." 

4.  On  each  of  its  heads  is  the  name  of  blasphemy.  Every- 
one of  the  seven  "kings,"  however  counted,  had  borne  the 
(to  Jewish  ears)  blasphemous  surname  of  Augustus  {Sebastos, 
"one  to  be  adored");  had  received  apotheosis,  and  been 
spoken  of  as  Divus  after  his  death;  had  been  honoured  with 
statues,  adorned  with  divine  attributes;  had  been  saluted  with 
divine  titles;  and  in  some  instances  had  been  absolutely  wor- 
shipped, and  that  in  his  lifetime,  with  temples  and  flamens — 
especially  in  the  Asiatic  provinces. 

5.  The  diadems  are  on  the  horns,  because  the  Roman  Pro- 
consuls, as  delegates  of  the  Emperor,  enjoy  no  little  share  of 
the  Caesarean  autocracy  and  splendour;  but — 

6.  The  name  of  blasphemy  (for  such  is  the  true  reading)  is 
only  on  the  heads,  because  the  Emperor  alone  receives  divine 
honour,  and  alone  bears  the  daring  title  of  "Augustus." 

7 .  One  of  the  heads  is  wounded  to  death,  ^  but  the  deadly  wound 
is  healed.  If  there  could  be  any  doubt  that  this  indicates  the 
violent  end,  and  universally  expected  return  of  Nero — or, 
which  is  the  same  thing  for  prophetic  purposes,  of  one  like 
him — that  doubt  seems  to  be  removed  by  the  parallel  descrip- 
tion of  the  17th  chapter,  where  we  are  told  that  of  the  seven 
kings  of  the  mystic  Babylon — 

8.  The  five  are  fallen,  the  one  is,  the  other  is  not  yet  come; 
and  "the  Beast  that  thou  sawest  was,  and  is  not,  and  is  about 
to  come  out  of  the  abyss;"  "the  Beast  that  was  and  is  not, 
even  he  is  an  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven.  "^  Can  language 
be  more  apparently  perplexing?  Yet  its  solution  is  obvious. 
No  explanation  worth  the  name  has  ever  been  offered  of  this 
enigma  except  that  which  makes  it  turn  on  the  widespread 


}  UAnttchrist,  p.  175.  Suet.  Ner.  29.  I  am  told  that  to  this  day,  in  the  Had  Gadyo, 
which  the  Jews  of  Germany  use  at  the  Passover,  their  old  persecutors  are  compared  to  various 
animals. 

'  Ten  horns,  as  in  Dan.  vii.  24.  There  they  are  the  Diadochi  ;  here  the  provinces  of  Italy, 
Achaia,  Asia,  Syria,  Kgypt,  Africa,  Spain,  Gaul,  Britain,  Germany  (Renan,  VAutec/irist, 
p.  13).  The  history  of  this  trouVjJed  epoch  amply  justifies  the  additional  touch  of  description 
m  which,  later  on,  they,  in  conjimction  with  the  Heast(/>.,  the  Provincial  Governors  and  Gen- 
erals, toRethcr  with  the  Kmperor),  hate  the  harlot  {i.e.,  the  City  of  Rome,  and  the  Senatus 
Populusque  Romnnus),  and  devour  her  flesh,  etc.  Again  and  again  m  the  civil  disorders 
Rome  was  broujihl  by  ICmperors  and  Proconsuls  to  the  Verge  of  rum  and  despair. 

'  Tust  as  the  eagle's  head  (Nero)  in  2  Ksdras  xi.  i,  36. 

*  Rev.  xvii.  8,  jo,  11.     In  vcr.  8  the  true  reading  is  »cot  Traptarai. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  533 

expectation  that  Nero  was  either  not  really  dead,  or  that,  even 
if  dead,  he  would  in  some  strange  way  return.  Only  two  or 
three  slaves  and  people  of  humble  rank  had  seen  his  corpse. 
All  of  these,  except  one  or  two  soldiers  and  a  single  freedman 
of  Galba,  had  been  his  humble  adherents.  It  seemed  incon- 
ceivable that  after  a  hundred  years  of  absolutism  the  last  of 
the  deified  race  of  Caesars  should  thus  disappear  like  foam 
upon  the  water.  The  five  kings  are  Augustus,  Tiberius, 
Gains  (Caligula),  Claudius,  and  Nero.  Since  the  seer  is 
writing  in  the  reign  of  Galba,  the  fifth  king  (Nero)  was,  and  is 
not;  Otho,  the  seventh  king,  was  not  yet  come.  When  he 
came,  which  could  not  be  long  delayed,  for  Galba  was  an  old 
man — he  was  to  reign  for  a  short  time,  and  then  was  to  come 
the  eighth,  who,  it  was  expected,  would  be  Nero  again,  one 
of  the  previous  seven,  and  so  both  the  fifth  and  the  eighth. 
For,  strange  to  say,  Nero  still  lived  in  the  regrets  alike  of 
Romans  and  of  Parthians.^  Since  Rome  is  the  great  city 
(xvii.  i8),  and  the  ten  horns  its  provincial  governors — "kings 
who  had  received  no  kingdom  as  yet"  (xvii.  i2)"'^ — it  seems 
difficult  even  to  imagine  any  oth'er  explanation  of  symbols 
which  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  Apostle  meant  to  be  understood, 
and  which  he  assumed  would  be  understood,  since  otherwise 
they  would  have  been  useless  to  his  readers.  But,  after  he 
has  thus  all  but  told  us  in  so  many  words  whom  he  means, 
the  seer  continues  the  hints  by  which  he  describes  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  Beast.     He  says  that — 

9.  ''All  the  earth  wondered  after  the  Beast.''  In  that  day 
men  rejoiced  in  the  omnipotence  of  evil,  and  did  homage  to 
it  in  its  concrete  form.  The  Roman  plebs  had  become  "sot- 
tish, licentious,  gamblers;"  and  one  who  was  more  giganti- 
cally sottish  than  themselves  had  become  their  ideal.  ^  The 
best  comment  on  this  particular  may  be  found  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  Tacitus  of  the  manner  in  which  all  Rome,  from  its 
proudest  senators  down  to  its  humblest  artisans,  poured  forth 
along  the  public  ways  to  receive  with  acclamations  the  guilty 
wretch  who  was  returning  from  Campania  with  his  hands  red 
with  his  murdered  mother's  blood.* 

10.  That  the  world  ''worshipped  the  dragon^  who  gave  his 


*  Suet.  N'er,  49,  50,  57;  Tac.  //.  i.  2,  78  ;  ii.  8  ;  Dion  Cassias,  Ixlv.  ;  and  Dio.  Chrysost. 
Orat.  xxi.  10. 

2  As  yet — but  several  of  them  were  to  do  so  in  the  course  of  the  next  few  years.  This  com- 
pletely disposes  of  the  supposed  refutation  of  the  views  here  maintained  on  the  plea  that  the 
Roman  Emperors  did  not  wear  diadems.  The  ten  horns  are  kingdomless  kings  [i.e..  Pro- 
vincial Governors),  and  yel  even  these  lionts  are  diademed  (xiii.  i). 

3  Maurice,  Revel,  p.  238.  •*  Tac.  Ami.  xiv.  13.     Dion  Cass.  Ixi.  16.     Suet.  Ner.  39, 


534  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

poK'cr  to  the  Beasi^''  would  be  a  natural  Jewish  way  of  indi- 
cating the  belief  that  the  Pagan  world,  when  it  offered  holo- 
causts for  its  Emperor,  was  adoring  devils  for  deities/ 

11.  The  cries  of  the  world,  **  Who  is  like  tmto  the  Beast? 
who  is  able  to  make  war  with  him?''  sound  like  an  echo  of  the 
shouts  "Victories  Olympic!  victories  Pythian!  Nero  the  Her- 
cules! Nero  Apollo!  Sacred  one!  The  One  ofthe^-^on," 
i.e.,  unparalleled  in  all  the  world!  with  which  Dion  Cassius 
tells  us  that  he  was  greeted  by  the  myriads  of  the  populace, 
when,  with  the  crowns  of  his  1800  artistic  triumphs,  he  re- 
turned from  his  insane  and  degraded  perambulation  of  Greece. 

12.  "The  mouth  speaking  great  things  and  blasphemies''  is 
the  mouth  which  was  incessantly  uttering  the  most  monstrous 
boasts  and  pretensions,^  declaring  that  no  one  before  himself 
had  the  least  conception  of  what  things  an  Emperor  might 
do,  and  of  the  lengths  to  which  he  could  go;  the  mouth  which 
ordered  the  erection  of  his  own  colossus,  120  feet  high, 
adorned  with  the  insignia  and  attributes  of  the  sun.^  As  for 
his  blasphemies,  Suetonius  tells  us  that  he  was  an  avowed  and 
even  contemptuous  atheist — "reiigionum  usquequaque  con- 
temptor.""* 

13.  '  'Power  was  given  him  to  aet''  forty-tiuo  months. ' '  The 
exact  significance  of  this  mystic  number,  which  is  also  de- 
scribed as  1260  days(xi.  2;  xii.  6),  and  as  "a  time,  tim.es,  and 
half  a  time"  (xii.  14),  is  variously  explained.  The  simplest 
explanation  is  that  it  refers  to  the  time  which  elapsed  between 
the  beginning  of  Nero's  persecution  in  Nov.,  64,  and  his  death 
in  June,  68,  which  is  almost  exactly  three  and  a  half  years. 

14.  ''  It  7vas  given  him  to  make  war  with  the  saints.^  and  to 
overcome  them.,'"  for  it  was  he  who  began  the  terrible  era  of 
martyrdom,  and  put  a  "a  vast  multitude"  to  death  with  hide- 
ous tortures  on  a  false  accusation. ** 

15.  '^  Power  was  given  hint  overall  kindreds,  and  tongues, 
and  nations."  Of  the  representatives  of  the  world-powers  in 
that  day,  Greece  received  him  with  frantic  adulation,  Parthia 
was  in  friendly  relations  with  him,  and  Armenia,  in  the  per- 

'  t  Cor.  X.  20. 

2  The  "month  speaking  great  things"  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  in  Dan.  vii.  8,  20,  never 
uttered  half  such  monstrous  boasts  as  that  of  Nero. 

'  IMiny,  //.  iV.  xxxix.  7.  Suet.  Ner.  30-32.  Dion  Cass.  Ixvi.  15.  Mart.  Sjiectac.  ii.  i, 
A/.  I.  71.  It  required  twenty-four  elephants  to  drag  it  away  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian.  Spart. 
lladr    19. 

*  N'rro,  56,  The  first  object  of  his  veneration  was  the  Syrian  goddess  "banc  mox  ita  spre- 
vit  ut  iinna  contaminarei." 

*  xin.  5.  iroi^crai  can  hardly  mean  "  to  continue,"  as  in  the  English  version.  It  must 
mean  "  to  act,"  "  to  do  wluit  he  will ;  "  and,  if  so,  the  addition  of  o  tfe'Aet  in  X  is  at  least  a 
lorrcct  ylosi.  0  i-ic.  Ann.  xv.  44. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  535 

son  of  Tiriclates,  laid  its  diadem  before  his  feet.*  Even  Herod 
the  Great,  though  himself  a  powerful  king,  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  talk  of  the  "almighty  Romans." 

1 6.  All  ''the  inhabitants  of  the  earthy  except  the  followers  of 
the  Lamb,  worshipped  himy  This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  liter- 
ally true  of  the  Emperors,  both  in  their  lifetime  and  after  their 
death.  At  this  dreadful  period  the  cult  of  the  Emperor  was 
almost  the  only  sincere  worship  which  still  existed.^ 

Then  follow  two  verses  (xiii.  9,  10)  which  do  not  bear  di- 
rectly upon  the  symbol.  They  are  either  a  prophecy  of  re- 
tribution given  for  the  consolation  of  the  suffering  saints,^  or, 
if  we  take  what  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  the  more  probable 
reading,  they  are  a  declaration  that  the  saints  must  indeed 
suffer,  but  that  their  sufferings  should  be  endure(^  in  faith  and 
patience.' 

In  these  paragraphs,  then,  we  have  sixteen  hints  as  to  who 
and  what  is  intended  by  the  Apocalyptic  Wild  Beast,  and  it 
is  undeniable 'that  every  one  of  these  directly  points  to  Rome  and 
Nero.  They  point  so  directly  to  Rome  and  to  Nero  that  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  how  the  writer  could  have  expressed  his 
meaning  less  enigmatically,  if  he  adopted  at  all  that  well-under- 
stood literary  method  of  Jewish  Apocalypses  which  was  enig- 
matical in  its  very  nature.®  The  most  remarkable  indication 
that  Nero  is  mainly  intended  is  that  it  is  exactly  in  the  most 
enigmatical  particulars  that  the  resemblance  is  most  close. 
He  was  mortally  wounded,  and  yet  (according  to  the  then 
belief,  which  is  here  adopted  for  purposes  of  description,  and 
which  was  symbolically  though  not  literally  true)  the  wound 
was  healed;  and  he  was  a  fifth  king  who  was,  and  is  not,  and 
yet  (so  St.  John  indicates  him  by  the  popular  belief)  should 
be  once  more  the  eighth  king,  and  one  of  the  seven. *^  If  we 
had  not  the  perfectly  simple  clue  to  what  was  indicated  by  this 
strangely  riddling  description,  we  might  give  up  the  interpre- 
tation as  insoluble;  but  the  clue  is  preserved  for  us,  not  only 
by  Jewish  Talmudists,'  and   Pagan  historians  and  authors, 

1  Tac.  Ann.  xiv.  26;  Suet.  Ner.  13. 

2  See  Boissier,  La  Religion  Romaine.  i.  122-208.  Augustus  disliked  all  personal  wor- 
ship, and  insisted  that  his  cult  should  be  joined  to  that  of  Rome.  But  Caligula  claimed  to  be 
worshipped  in  person  (Suet.  Cat.  21),  and  Nero  received  apotheosis  in  his  lifetime.  I'ac. 
Ann.  XV.  74. 

3  Perhaps  an  allusion  to  Nero's  supposed  death  and  flight.  ■*  Rev.  xiii.  10. 

^  How  strange  were  the  symbolic  devices  of  Apocalyptists  we  see  in  the  8th  Book  of  the 
Sibyllines,  where  Hadrian  is  described  as  "  having  a  name  like  that  of  a  sea"  (the  Hadriatic), 
and  is  called  ''the  wretched  one,"  because  of  the  resemblance  of  his  name  (i^lianus)  to  the 
Greek  eleeinos  {Ornc.  Sib.  viii.  52,  59). 

"  It  was  believed  that  he  would  return  from  the  East,  by  the  aid  of  Parthians,  among  whom 
he  was  thought  to  have  taken  refuge. 

^  The  tract  Gittin,  quoted  by  Gratz,  Gesch.  d.  Judenth.  vol.  iv.  p.  203. 


536  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

such  as  Tacitus,'  Suetonius,^  Dion  Cassius/  and  Dion  Chry- 
sostom;*  but  also  by  Ciiristian  fathers  like  St.  Irenaeus," 
Lactantius/  St.  Victorinus,  Sulpicius  Severus/  and  the  Sibyl- 
line books;*  and  even  by  St.  Jerome^  and  by  St.  Augustine."^ 
Nothing  can  prove  more  decisively  than  these  references  that 
for  four  centuries  many  Christians  identified  Nero  with  the 
Beast.  An  Eastern  kingdom  had  long  been  promised  to  him 
by  soothsayers."  The  author  of  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah  says 
that  Beliar  shall  descend  from  the  sky  in  the  form  of  man,  an 
impious  king,  the  murderer  of  his  mother  {i.e.^  in  the  form  of 
Nero).'"  So,  too,  Commodianus,  in  the  third  century,  talks  of 
Nero  being  raised  from  the  underworld. ^^  Nay  more,  we  can 
appeal  to  the  earliest  extant  Greek  commentary  on  the  Apo- 
calypse— th£4]t  of  Andreas,  Bishop  of  the  Cappadocian  Csesarea, 
who  says  that  "tbe  king  of  the  Romans  shall  come  as  Anti- 
christ to  destroy"  the  four  kingdoms  of  Daniel.  It  would 
have  been  strange  that  the  Christian  world  should  have  felt 
any  doubt  that  Nero  is  intended,  if  all  history'did  not  show 
the  extent  to  which  dogmatic  bias  —  which  only  resorts  to 
Scripture  in  order  to  find  there  its  own  ready-made  convictions 
— has  dominated  for  centuries  over  simple  and  straightfor- 
ward exegesis.  But  as  though  to  exclude  aiiy  possibility  of 
doubt  about  the  matter,  St.  John,  after  all  these  clear  indica- 
tions, has  all  but  told  us  in  express  words  the  name  of  the 
man  whom  he  means  by  his  Antichrist  and  Wild  Beast — by 
this  deified  yet  slain  and  to-be-resuscitated  murderer  of  the 
saints.  He  does  so  in  the  last  verses  of  the  chapter.  They 
furnish  a  seventeenth  detail,  in  which  the  indications  of  the  seer 
point  immediately  and  distinctly  to  the  worst  of  the  Roman 
Emperors. 

17.  "Here  is  wisdom,"  he  says  (chap.  xiii.  iS);  or,  as  he 
expresses  it  in  chap.  xvii.  9,  "wisdom  is  needed  to  grasp  the 
meaning  of  my  symbol;"  or,  perhaps,  as  Ewald  understands 
it,  "this  is  the  sense, — whoever  has  wisdom  will  understand  it 
thus."     "Let  him  that  hath  understanding  count  the  number 

>  Tac.  Hist.  ii.  8.  2  Suet.  Ner.  57,  et  ibi  Cnmubon. 

'  Dion  Cass.  Xiphilinus,  Ixiv.  9.  See  Zonaras,  Ann.  xi.  15-18.  The  expectation  was 
most  current  in  Asia  Minor,  and  Nero's  thoughts  were  incessantly  turned  to  the  East  by  astrol- 
ogers, etc.     T.1C.  Hist.  li.  95  :  Ann.  xv.  36.  ~  Suet.  Ner.  40-47. 

*  Dion  ChrysosL  Orat.  xxi.  (i.  p.  504,  cd.  Reiske:  "  Even  now  all  desire  hini  to  live,  and 
most  persons  think  that  he  is  still  alive  "J. 

*  Iren.  I.e.  6  Lactant.  De  Mort.  Persec.  2. 

'  Suln.  Sever.  Ilist.  Sac.  ii.  28.  "  It  is  the  current  opinion  of  many  that  he  is  yet  to  come 
as  Anttchrist."    This  was  written  a.d.  403. 

»  Sityyll.  V.  33  :  viii.  71.  »  Jer.  in  Dan.  xi.  28. 

'*  Aug.  Ue  Ctv.  Dei,  xx.  19,  3.  "  Unde  nonnulli  ipsum  (Ncronem)  resurrecturum  et  futu- 
rum  Antichnstum  suspicantur,  alii  vero  nee  occisun  futant  sed  subtractum  potius." 

"  Suet.  Ner.  40.  12  Ascens.  Is.  iv.  2-14.  J3  Commodian.  Instr.  41. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  537 

of  the  Beast;  for  it  is  the  mtmhcr  of  a  man.''  In  other  words, 
he  tells  us  that  he  now  intends  to  indicate  7iumerically  the  name 
which  he  dared  not  actually  express.  A  Jew  or  Jewish  Chris- 
tian would  at  once  be  aware  that  he  now  intends  to  give  an 
instance  of  one  of  the  forms  of  that  Kabbalistic  method,  of 
which  traces  are  found  even  in  the  ancient  prophets,  and  which 
was  known  to  the  Rabbis  as  Gematria^  i.e.,  Geometry,  or  the 
numerical  indication  of  names.*  Gentile  Christians  were  not 
so  familiar  with  this  method;''  but  we  see  from  Irenaeus  that 
they  could  easily  have  got  the  general  clue  from  their  Judaic 
brethren,  to  whom  the  Apocalypse  is  mainly  addressed."' 
There  was  not  much  danger  of  a  secret  being  betrayed  which 
might  cost  the  life  of  any  one  who  mentioned  it,  and  at  the 
same  time  imperil  the  whole  community.  What  St.  John  says 
in  effect  is:  "I  shall  now  give  you  the  name  of  the  Wild  Beast 
in  its  numerical  value.  You  have  heard  many  specimens  of 
this  method,  so  that  you  can  apply  it  in  this  instance,  though 
I  warn  you  that  it  may  give  you  some  difficulty."  He  evi- 
dently inteftded  some  of  them  to  find  out  the  number  of  the 
Beast,  which  was  also  the  number  of  a  man,  while  he  pointed 
out  that  there  was  one  unexpected  element  in  the  particular 
solution.  If  it  had  been  merely  a  name  in  the  numerical  value 
of  its  Greek  letters  there  would  have  been  so  little  difficulty 
about  it  that  any  ordinarily  educated  reader  might  have  dis- 
covered it  after  a  few  trials.  He  would  only  have  to  find  out 
what  living  men  there  were  who  had  the  dozen  or  more  attri- 
butes which  the  seer  had  given  to  the  Beast,  and  whose  names, 
counted  by  the  value  of  the  letters,  made  up  the  number  of 


1  For  an  account  of  Gematria,  and  nnmerous  illustrations  of  it,  I  may  refer  to  my  paper  on 
Rabbinic  Exegesis  in  the  Expositor  for  1877,  vol.  v.  Similarly  among  Egyptian  mystics  the 
God  Thouth  was  spoken  of  by  the  cypher  1218.  On  the  Gnostic  gems  the  word  Abraxas  is 
used  as  isopsephic  to  Meithras  (the  Sun)  because  the  letters  of  both  names  =  325. 

2  It  was,  however,  by  no  means  unknown  to  educated  Greeks  under  the  name  of  isopsephia. 
For  instance,  they  called  verses  isopscphics  when  their  letters  made  up  numerically  the  same 
sum.     In  the  Anthology  we  find  an  epigram  which  begins — 

"One,  hearing  the  words  Demagoras  and  Plague  (Loimos),  which  are  of  equal  numerical 
value" — 

which  he  could  test  in  a  moment,  since,  in  Greek  letters,  Demagoras  is — 
4  +  1+40+1+3  +  70+100+1  +  200  =  420 
AAMATO         P        A        2 
and  Loimos  (Plague)  is — 

30  +  70  +  10  +  40  -I-  70  +  200  —  420 
A       O        I       M        O        2 
There  are  isopsephic  inscriptions  in  the  Corpus  Inscr.  Grcec.  3544-3546.     {See  Aul.  Gell.  xiv. 

3  The  Sibyllist  de.scribes  Nero  as  the  Emperor  whose  sign  is  50,  "  a  fearful  serpe7tt  ivho 
shaU  cause  a  grievous  7('ar."  N,  the  initial  letter  of  Nero,  =  50.  I  have  already  referred 
to  the  fancy  of  Barnabas  abrut  Abraham's  318  servants  as  represented  by  iht.  and  so  a  sort 
of  symbol  of  Jesus  on  the  Cress.  Similarly  in  Tertullian  {Cann.  adi'.  Marc.  iii.  4),  tlie  vic- 
tory of  Gideon's  300  is  com  e;ted  with  tlie  fact  that  300  =  T,  the  sign  of  the  Cross  :  "  Hoc 
etiam  signo  praedonum  stravit  accrvos." 


538  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

666.  As  there  was  scarcely  any  other  living  person  to  whom 
the  Apocalyptic  description  could  apply,  Nero's  was  probably 
the  first  name  which  a  Jewish  Christian  reader  would  have 
tried.  And  here  he  would  have  been  at  once  baffled.  In 
Greek  letters  he  would  have  found  .that  Neron  made  50  +  5  + 
100  +  800  +  50=1005.  If  he  tried  Neron  Kaisar,  it  would 
only  make  1005  +  332=1337.  Almost  every  combination 
which  he  tried  would  fail,  and  very  possibly  he  would  give  up 
the  task  in  despair,  with  the  thought  that  he  did  not  possess 
the  requisite  "wisdom,"  though  he  may  have  solved  many 
such  problems  in  Sibylline  or  similar  books.  Thus,  in  the 
Sibylline  books,  the  poet  indicates  the  name  Jesus,  in  Greek 
'Ir/o-oCs,  by  saying  that  it  is  a  word  which  has  4  vowels  and  2 
consonants,  and  that  the  whole  number  is  equivalent  to  8 
units,  8  tens,  8  hundreds,  i.e.  888  ('I?/o-oi;s=io  +  8  +  2oo+7o 
+  400  +  200  =  888),  and  no  Greek-speaking  Christian  would 
have  had  any  trouble  in  solving  the  riddle.  Since,  however, 
all  the  other  indications  pointed  so  clearly  to  Rome  and  Nero, 
the  Greek  Christian  reader  might  very  naturally  have  hit  upon 
"Latinus"  (Aar€ti/os=3o  + 1+300  +  5 +  10  +  50  + 70  + 200=666) 
as  a  sort  of  general  indication  of  Rome  and  "a  Latin  man." 
This  accounts  for  the  prevalence  of  this  explanation  among 
the  Fathers,  beginning  with  St.  Irenaeus,  who  may  have  heard 
it  from  St.  Polycarp,  who  had  seen  St.  John  in  his  old  age.' 
These  early  Christian  writers  were,  so  to  speak,  on  the  right 
track;  yet  with  "Latinus"  they  could  hardly  have  been  quite 
satisfied.  It  is  a  vague  adjective,  and  the  names  Laiium  and 
Latinus  had  long  been  practically  obsolete.  If  this  were  in- 
deed the  solution,  they  might  have  put  down  its  vagueness  to 
intentional  obscurity.  We  can  hardly  conceive  what  care  a 
Jewish  writer  had  to  take  if  he  touched  in  any  respect  un- 
favorably upon  the  imperial  power  in  those  days  of  delators 
and  laesa  viajestas.''  Joseph  us  was  in  high  favour,  first  with 
Poppaea  and  then  with  the  Flavian  dynasty;  at  Rome  he  was 
so  great  and  influential  that  he  probably  had  the  honour  of  a 
statue  in  the  imperial  city: ' — yet  he  stops  abruptly  in  his  ex- 
planation of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  with  a  mysterious  hint 
that  he  does  not  deem  it  prudent  to  say  more.*  This  evi- 
dently was  because  he  feared  that,  if  he  touched  on  any  ex- 

i  \^\'^^^-  ^^'T..  V-  30-.    Hippolyt.  De  Christo,  p.  26. 

J     ^^^-  -^"f-  '"•  38  :  iv.  50:  Hist.  \.  Tj.     Suei.  Ner.  32:—"  tuin  iit  le?*:  inajestatis. 
lacta  d;cfaquc  oinma,  quibiis  modo  delator  non  decsset  teneientur." 
*  Juv.  Sat.  I.  130. 
los.  Antt.  X    10,  8  4  :   "Daiiid  did  also  declare  the  meaning  of  the  slone  to  the  king; 
but  I  do  not  think  />roJ>tr  to  relu  te  it:' 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  539 

planation  of  the  work  of  destruction  wrought  by  the  "stone 
cut  without  hands,"  he  might  seem  to  be  threatening  future 
ruin  and  extinction  to  the  Roman  empire;  and  to  do  this  went 
beyond  his  very  hmited  daring.  It  was  perhaps  the  complete 
unsatisfactoriness  of  the  solution  '' Lateinos"  which  made 
some  Christians,  as  Irenaeus  further  tells  us,  try  the  name 
Teitan,  which  also  gives  the  mystic  number  666  [Teita7i=  t^oo 
+  5  + lo-f  300+1  +  50  =  666),  and  which  has  the  additional 
advantage  of  being  a  word  of  six  letters.  In  this  instance  also 
ingenuity  was  not  very  far  astray;  for  Titan  was  one  of  the 
old  poetic  names  of  the  Sun,  and  the  Sun  was  the  deity  whose 
attributes  Nero  most  affected,  as  all  the  world  was  able  to 
judge  from  seeing  his  colossus  with  radiated  head,  of  which 
the  substructure  of  the  base  still  remains  close  by  the  ruins  of 
the  Colosseum.'  The  mob  which  greeted  him  with  shouts  of 
"Nero- Apollo  I"  were  well  aware  that  he  had  a  predilection 
for  this  title. 

On  the  whole,'  however,  the  Greek  Christians  must  have 
remained  a  little  perplexed,  a  little  dissatisfied,  and  must  have 
been  inclined  to  say,  with  some  of  the  Fathers,'^  that  only  time 
could  reveal  the  secret;  or  else  to  believe  that  perhaps  there 
was  more  than  one  solution.  They  must,  however,  have  known 
what  was  7neant^  even  if  the  exact  equi-numeration  of  any 
words  which  they  could  hit  upon  did  not  entirely  satisfy  them. 
And  this  was  the  general  condition  in  which  the  secret  re- 
mained in  the  early  Christian  Church.  At  any  rate  there  stood 
the  strange  number  before  them. 

The  very  look  of  it  was  awful.  The  first  letter  was  the  initial 
letter  of  the  name  of  Christ.  The  last  letter  was  the  first 
double-letter  {st)  of  the  Cross  (^/auros).  Between  the  two 
the  Serpent  stood  confessed  with  its  writhing  sign  and  hissing 
sound. ^  The  whole  formed  a  triple  repetition  of  6,  the  essen- 
tial number  of  toil  and  imperfection;  and  this  numerical  sym- 
bol of  the  Antichrist,  666,  stood  in  terrible  opposition  to  888 
— the  three  perfect  8's  of  the  name  of  Jesus. 

But  Jewish  readers,  and,  as  we  have  said,  it  was  to  Jewish 
readers  that  the  Apocalypse  was  primarily  addressed,  would 
find  none  of  the  difficulties  which  perplexed  their  Gentile  fel- 


'  What  was  meant  by  the  guess  Runnthas  is  uncertain.     Could  it  be  an  allusion  to  the 
'aurea  caesaries"  which  grew  down  over  Nero's  neck? 

2  Irenaeus,  v.  30.  3  Rev.  \ii.  9;  xx.  2. 


540  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

low-Christians.  The  Apostle  had  warned  them  that  the  solu- 
tion did  not  He  so  much  on  the  surface  as  was  usual  in  similar 
enigmas.  Every  Jewish  reader,  of  course,  saw  that  the  Beast 
was  a  symbol  for  Nero.'  And  both  Jews  and  Christians  re- 
garded Nero  as  also  having  close  affinities  with  the  serpent 
or  dragon.  That  Nero  was  intended  would  be  as  clear  to  a 
Jew  as  that  Babylon  meant  Rome,  though  Rome  is  never  men- 
tioned. He  would  not  try  the  name  Nero  Caesar  in  Latin, 
because  isopscphia  (which  the  Jew  called  Geniatrid)  was  almost 
unknown  among  the  Romans,  and  their  alphabetic  numeration 
was  wholly  defective.  He  might  try  Ne/vwv  Y^amap  in  Greek, 
but  it  would  not  give  him  the  right  number.  Then,  as  with 
a  flash  of  intuition,  it  would  occur  to  him  to  try  the  name  in 
Hebrew.^  The  Apostle  was  writing  as  a  Hebrew,  was  evi- 
dently thinking  as  a  Hebrew^. ^  His  soloecistic  Greek  was  suf- 
ficient to  prove  that  the  language  was  unfamiliar  to  him,  and 
that  all  persons  of  whom  he  thought  would  primarily  present 
themselves  to  his  mind  by  their  Hebrew  designations.  This, 
too,  would  render  the  cryptograph  additionally  secure  against 
the  prying  inquisition  of  treacherous  Pagan  informers.  It 
would  have  been  to  the  last  degree  perilous  to  make  the  secret 
too  clear.  Accordingly,  the  Jewish  Christian  would  have  tried 
the  name  as  he  thought  oi  the  name — that  is  /;/  Hebrew  letters. 
And  the  moment  that  he  did  this  the  secret  stood  revealed. 
No  Jew  ever  thought  of  Nero  except  as  '' Neron  Kesar,''  and 
this  gives  at  once  -  nop  ",113=50 +  200 +  6  + 50+100  +  604-200 
z^666.^ 

Jewish  Christians  were  familiar  with  enigmas  of  this  kind. 
They  occur  even  in  the  ancient  Prophets  after  the  days  of 
Jeremiah,  and  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.^ 

'  The  .Sibyllists  had  already  spoken  of  Caligula  as  Beliar  (Cariti.  iii.  63).  and  as  a  serpent. 
The  stories  of  the  serpent  which  had  crawled  from  Nc-ro's  cradle,  and  of  his  serpeni-aniuleC 
(v.  supra,  p.  529)  would  add  significance  to  the  symbolism. 

'■^  1  am  not  sure  that  a  Jew  would  not  have  tried  Hebrew  letters  at  once.  A  Talmudic 
scholar  wrote  to  tell  me  that  my  number  for  Rome  {su/>r<i,  p.  491)  was  wrong,  because  he  had 
tried  it  in  Hebrew  letters.     It  had  not  occurred  to  him  to  try  it  in  (ireek  letters ! 

'  See  the  starding  Hebraism  in  the  Greek  of  Rev.  i.  4,  and  comp.  Rev.  ix.  11  ;  xvi.  16. 

*  The  name  was  so  written  in  Jewish  inscriptions.  See  Ewald.  Die  Jvhnnn.  iicliriften, 
ii.  203  ;  IJuxtorf.  Lex.  Rabbin,  s.  v.  Xhe  name  Csesarea  appears  m  the  Talmud  as  T'lOJ?. 
Rcnan  mentions  the  remarkable  fact  that  the  name  for  the  Antichrist  in  Armenian  is  Nercn 
(».  23).  Ewald  found  that  Josippon  writes  the  name  IDp.  The  secret  has  been  almost  simul- 
taneously re- liscovcred  of  late  years  by  Fritzsche  in  Halle,  by  Henary  in  Berlin,  by  Reuss  in 
Sfrasl-our;::.  and  by  Hitzic:  in  HeidelVjertr.  See  Hleek.  Vorlesuiigcn,  292  ff.;  Krenkei,  7>r 
A f>i<stcl  Johannes,  ^%  ;  Voikmar,  OJ^eytbaru/ig,  18  and  214.  Ewald  was  only  prevented  from 
makiii^j  the  di.scovery  in  1828  by  the  assumption,  which  he  afterwards  found  to  be  erroneous, 
that  (  a!sar  must  lie  spelt  in  Hebrew  with  ^.yod.  He  therelore  conjectured  "  Caesar  of  Rome" 
(  cm  nCp)  Oohanu.  .Schri/t.  ii.  263). 

*  Thus  ni  Jerem.  Ii.  41,  '•  Shesh.ach  "  stands  for  "  Babel."  by  the  transmutation  of  letters 
known  as  Atbash  (a  subspecies  of  what  the  Rabbis  call  Tkeinourah  or  "change")  ;  and  in 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  541 

The  Jewish  Christians  could  not  have  hesitated  for  a  moment 
in  the  conckision  that  in  the  Hebrew  name  of  Nero  the  solu- 
tion of  the  riddle  stood  revealed.  The  Jews  were  remarkable 
for  reticence,  and  men  are  specially  liable  to  keep  their  secrets 
to  themselves  when  they  involve  matters  of  life  and  death. 
Many  methods  and  secrets  of  Rabbinic  exegesis,  though  of 
great  value,  have  remained  unrevealed  by  Jews  to  Christians, 
simply  because  the  jealous  exclusiveness  and  haughty  preju- 
dice of  that  singular  race — feelings  which,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, have  been  due  in  no  small  degree  to  the  brutality  of 
their  enemies — makes  them  indifferent  to  the  religious  views 
of  others.  It  is,  therefore,  by  no  means  remarkable  that  the 
Asiatic  Judaists,  who  first  read  St.  John's  Apocalypse,  did 
not  betray  what  they  must  have  recognised  to  be  the  name 
which  exactly  corresponded  with  the  number  of  the  Beast. 
They  might  be  pardoned  if  they  were  reluctant  to  place  their 
lives  and  the  very  existence  of  their  churches  at  the  mercy  of 
Gentile  brethren,  of  whose  prudence  and  fidelity  they  could 
not  in  every  instance  be  perfectly  secure.  Enough,  however, 
may  have  escaped  them  to  put  others  in  the  right  direction; 
and,  as  far  as  the  general  understanding  of  the  Apostle's 
meaning  was  concerned,  it  mattered  very  little  whether  the 
guessed  solution  was  Lateinos,  or  Teitan^  or  Neron  Kesar^ 
since  all  three  words  were  but  varying  forms  of  the  same 
essential  thing.  All  the  earliest  Christian  writers  on  the 
Apocalypse,  from  Irenaeus  down  to  Victorinus  of  Pettau'  and 
Commodian  in  the  fourth,  and  Andreas'  in  the  fifth,  and  St. 
Beatus  in  the  eighth  century,  connect  Nero,  or  some  Roman 
Emperor,  with  the  Apocalyptic  Beast. 

If  any  confirmation  could  possibly  be  wanting  to  this  con- 
clusion, we  find  it  in  the  curious  fact  recorded  by  Irenaeus, 
that,  in  some  copies,  he  found  the  reading  6i6.  Now  this 
change  can  hardly  have  been  due  to  carelessness.  The  letters 
Xt?  were  so  singular,  even  in  their  external  form,  that  no  one 
could  have  been  likely  to. alter  them  into  x^s  or  6i6.^  But  if 
the  above  solution   be  correct,  this   remarkable  and  ancient 


li.^  I,  '■'  they  that  dioell  tJi  the  midst  ofthejtt,''''  means  the  Chaldaeans  {lebh  kamaiz=  Kas- 
dhn)  ;  and  in  Isa.  vii.  6,  Tabeal,  by  anotlier  sort  of  Themourah,, gives  us  the  name  of  Reina- 
liali.      See  my  Paper  in  the  I'lxpositor,  v.  375. 

1  "Hunc  ergo— JiT.  Neronem — suscitatum  Deus  mittet  regem  dignum  dignis  et  Christii/n 
quah'iJi  mcruerunt  Judaci  "  (Vict.  Pett.  in  Apoc.  xiii. ). 

-  fajv  KpaTJjaet  6  'AvTi\'pKTTO?  tbs  Pw/aai'ioi'  ^acriAeu?  eAeutrdjuevo?  (Andr.). 

3  e^jjxoi'Ta  Hko.  e^  is  the  reading  of  the  Codex  Ephraemi.  Irenseus  appeals  for  the  correct- 
ness of  the  reading  666  not  only  to  all  the  good  and  ancient  MSS.,  bnt  to  the  direct  testimony 
of  those  \vho  had  seen  St.  John  (fj.apTvpovyTuii'  avTutv  kneivniv  tuiv  /car*  o\piv  tow  'liadvi^u 
ioipaKOTUiv). 


542  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

variation  is  at  once  explained  and  accounted  for.  A  Jewish 
Christian,  trying  his  Hebrew  solution,  which  would  (as  he 
knew)  defend  the  interpretation  from  dangerous  Gentiles, 
may  have  been  puzzled  by  the  ;/  in  Neron  Kesar.  Although 
the  name  was  so  written  in  Hebrew,  he  knew  that  to  Romans, 
and  Gentiles  generally,  the  name  was  always  Nero  Csesar,  not 
Neron.  But  Nero  Kesar  in  Hebrew,  omitting  the  final  ;/, 
gave  6 1 6,  not  666;  and  he  may  have  altered  the  reading  be- 
cause he  imagined  that,  in  an  unimportant  particular,  it  made 
the  solution  more  suitable  and  easy. 

One  objection  will  at  once  be  made  to  this  solution.  Nero, 
it  will  be  said,  never  did  return.  The  belief  in  his  return, 
though  it  showed  an  obstinate  vitality,  was  a  mere  chimaera. 
St.  John  could  not  have  enshrined  in  his  Apocalypse  what 
turned  out  to  be  but  a  popular  mistake. 

Such  an  objection  is  entitled  to  respect,  but  it  imports  a 
priori  considerations  into  a  plain  matter  of  exegesis.  This 
belief  about  Nero's  return  did  prevail  in  the  Christian,  no 
less  than  in  the. Pagan,  world.  It  is  found  again  and  again 
in  the  Sibylline  books,  and  in  later  Christian  writers.  In  the 
Pagan  world  it  led  to  the  success  of  more  than  one  false  Nero. 
It  is  probablethat  one  of  these  was  making  himself  extremely 
formidable  in  the  very  region  in  which  St.  John  was  writing, 
and  at  that  very  time.^  In  the  Christian  world  the  belief  was 
still  existent  three  centuries  later,  that  Nero  would  return  in 
person  as  the  future  Antichrist.  The  vividness  of  the  con- 
temporary belief  must  be  measured  by  its  extraordinary  per- 
manence. 

We  have  no  right,  then,  to  frame  our  interpretation  of 
Scripture  by  our  theories  respecting  the  character  and  limits 
of  how  it  ought  to  be  written.  Our  duty  is,  on  the  contrary, 
to  discover  its  interpretation,  and  to  be  guided  by  this  to  the 
true  theory  of  its  claims.  When  we  study  the  meaning  of  a 
passage,  our  sole  and  our  solemn  aim  should  be  to  get  at  the 
real  meaning,  and  not  to  repudiate  or  to  gloss  over  that  mean- 
ing in  obedience  to  subjective  convictions.  We  should  not 
conceal  from  ourselves  that  to  gef  rid  of  a  plain  explanation 
because  it  does  not  at  once  fall  in  with  our  ready-made  dogmas 
is  a  dishonesty  which,  in  the  language  of  the  Pook  of  Job,  is 
a  form  of  "lying  for  (iod."  God's  own  rebuke  to  Job's 
three  friends  was  meant  to  teach  mankind  for  ever  that  truth 


«  Tac.  //.  i.  -  ;   ii.  8  :   Suet.  Xir.  57  ;   Zuuarus. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  543 

and  charity  are  infinitely  more  sacred  than  either  conventional 
orthodoxy  or  traditional  exegesis. 

In  reality,  however,  this  question  is  not  one  which  in  any 
way  affects  the  dignity  of  revelation.  St.  John  uses  the  com- 
mon belief,  as  he  might  have  used  any  other  contemporary 
fact,  or  any  other  contemporary  notion,  merely  to  help  him 
in  the  elaboration  of  lys  symbol,  and  to  enable  him  to  point 
out  the  person  whom  he  is  describing.  The  arrangement  of 
the  symbolism  affects  in  no  wise  the  truth  of  the  gx^dX  princi- 
ples which  he  reveals.  The  Divine  hopes  and  consolations  of 
which  the  Apocalypse  is  full,  the  priceless  lessons  in  which  it 
abounds,  are  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affected  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  he  depicts  the  Neronian  Wild  Beast  in  the 
colours  which  every  other  historian,  whethersecular  or  sacred, 
would  have  used  for  his  delineation. 

But  farther,  be  it  observed  that,  even  if  this  detail  of 
Nero's  personal  return  had  been  meant  to  be  in  any  way  es- 
sential to  the  general  prediction,  it  was,  with  singular  exact- 
ness, symbolically  fulfilled.  Although  Nero  had  not  (as  was 
popularly  supposed)  taken  refuge  among  the  Parthians,  and 
never  was  restored  by  their  aid,  as  was  the  common  expecta- 
tion of  that  day,  yet  such  an  anticipation  is  not  directly  in- 
volved in  the  Apocalypse,  and  in  any  case  does  not  belong  to 
its  essential  meaning.  Every  successive  Antichrist  has  shown 
the  Neronian  characteristics.  If  the  prophecy  of  the  return 
of  Elijah  the  Prophet  was  adequately  fulfilled  in  the  ministry 
of  John  the  Baptist,  the  prophecy  of  the  returning  Nero  was 
adequately  fulfilled  in  Domitian,  in  Decius,  in  Diocletian,  in 
many  a  subsequent  persecutor  of  the  saints  of  God.  Allegory 
is  only  susceptible  of  allegoric  interpretation;  and  in  the  per- 
son of  Domitian,  as  we  shall  see  further  on,^  the  prophecy  of 
Antichrist  in  the  person  of  Nero  redivivus  may  be  regarded  as 
having  been  almost  literally,  and  in  every  sense  symbolically, 
fulfilled.  I  am  well  aware  that  even  recent  English  commen- 
tators have  done  their  best  to  treat  this  view  of  the  Apocal- 
ypse with  suspicion  and  contempt,  to  treat  it  as  unworthy  of 
their  modern  theory  of  "verbal  dictation."  Let  them  beware 
lest  in  so  doing  they  be  haply  found  to  fight  against  God,  and 
lest,  in  their  attempts  to  force  upon  Christendom  their  pri- 
vate interpretations  of  prophecy,  they  only  succeed  in  bring- 
ing all  prophecy  into  suspicion  and  contempt.^ 


1  Soe  infra,  p.  553- 

2  See  some  wise  remarks  of  Ewald,  Johann.  Schri/t.  ii. 


544  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

SECTION   VI. 

THE    SECOND    BEAST   AND   THE    FALSE    PROPHET, 

But  if  Nero  be  the  Wild  Beast  from  the  sea,  who  is  the 
Wild  Beast  from  the  land?  If  Nero  be,  in  the  parallel  pass- 
ages, the  death-wounded  yet  unslain  head  oi  the  Beast,  who  is 
the  False  Prophet  which  wrought  the  signs  before  him? 

Our  great  difficulty  in  answering  this  question  rises  from 
the  fact  that  not  the  lightest  breath  of  tradition  upon  the  sub- 
ject has  been  preserved  in  the  first  two  centuries.  The  ear- 
liest suggestion  is  furnished  by  Victorinus  at  the  close  of  the 
third.  All  commentators  alike,  Praeterist,  Futurist,  Contin- 
uous-Historical, and  Allegorical,  with  all  their  subdivisions, 
have  here  been  reduced  to  manifest  perplexity,  and  have 
been  forced  to  content  themselves  with  explanations  which  do 
violence  to  one  or  more  of  the  indications  by  which  we  must 
be  guided. 

What  are  those  indications? 

They  are  mainly  given  in  Rev.  xiii,  ii — 17,  and  are  as  fol- 
lows:— 

1.  I  saw  another  wild  beast  coming  up  out  of  the  earth. 

2.  And  he  had  two  horns  like  unto  a  lamb. 

3.  And  he  spake  as  a  dragon. 

4.  And  he  exercised  all  the  authority  of  the  first  Beast  in 
his  sight. 

5.  And  he  maketh  the  earth  to  worship  the  first  Beast  whose 
death-stroke  was  healed. 

6.  And  he  doeth  great  signs  which  it  was  given  him  to  do 
m  the  sight  of  the  Beast,  that  he  should  even  make  fire  to 
come  down  from  heaven  upon  the  earth  by  reason  of  the  signs 
which  it  was  given  him  to  do  in  the  sight  of  the  Beast,  saying 
to  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth  that  they  should  make  an 
image  to  the  Beast  who  hath  the  stroke  of  the  sword  and  lived. 

7.  He  gives  breath  to  the  image  of  the  Beast,  and  makes 
it  speak. 

8.  He  causes  the  execution  of  those  who  will  not  worship 
the  image  of  the  Beast. 

9.  He  makes  men  of  all  ranks  and  classes  receive  a  stamp 
on  their  right  hand  or  their  forehead. 

10.  He  prevents  all  who  have  not  the  mark  of  the  Beast 
(liis  name  and  the  number  of  his  name)  from  buying  and  sell- 
ing. 

The  only  additional  clue  is  that   in  the  parallel  description 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  545 

of  Rev.  xix.  20  he  is  described  under  another  aspect  as  "the 
False  Prophet  that  wrought  the  signs  in  the  sight  of  the  Beast 
wherewith  he  deceived  those  that  had  received  his  mark  and 
worshipped  his  image." 

Now  in  trying  to  discover  the  meaning  of  the  symbol,  we 
may  again  pass  over  the  countless  idle  guesses  of  those  who 
have  endeavoured  to  torture  the  Apocalypse  into  a  prediction 
of  the  details  of  all  subsequent  Christian  history.  With  these 
guesses  we  are  not  concerned.  They  have,  as  a  rule,  only 
been  adopted  by  the  individual  commentators  who  suggested 
them.  Nothing,  we  may  be  sure,  was  further  from  the  mind 
of  the  writer  than  a  desire  to  gratify  the  fantastic  curiosity  of 
eighteen  centuries  of  Christians  as  to  events  yet  future  which 
they  have  been  always  unable  to  foresee,  or  even  subsequently 
to  recognise.  The  resemblance  of  Nero  to  Antiochus  Epiph- 
anes  as  the  personification  of  savage  enmity  to  the  people  of 
God  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  is  enough  to  suggest  the  certainty 
that  in  the  case  of  the  second  Beast,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
first,  the  seer  has  primarily  in  view  some  contemporary  person 
or  phenomenon. 

Setting  aside  many  conjectures,  which  I  have  fully  ex- 
amined elsewhere,'  that  the  second  Beas^  is  meant  for  Balbil- 
lus  of  Ephesus,  or  Tiberius  Alexander,  or  Josephus,  or  Ges- 
sius  Florus,  three  conjectures  alone  seem  to  me  to  be  worthy 
of  special  consideration: — 

I.  One  is  suggested  by  Victorinus  of  Pettau  (a.d.  303). 
He  thinks  that  by  this  Wild  Beast  and  False  Prophet  is  meant 
the  Roman  x\ugurial  system. 

There  is  in  this  suggestion  much  probability,  and  we  may 
point  out  in  passing  that  Victorinus  in  the  third  century,  no 
less  than  Irenaeus  in  the  second,  saw  that  the  Apocalypse 
moved  in  the  plane  of  contemporary  events.  The  early  men- 
tion of  this  solution  may  have  been  due  to  some  echo  of  still 
more  ancient  tradition.  Certain  it  is  that,  in  appearing  to 
identify  the  second  Beast  with  the  "False  Prophet"  (xvi.  13; 
xix.  20;  XX.  10),  St.  John  lends  some  sanction  to  this  view. 
The  influence  exercised  by  Chaldcsans^  Math€7?iatici,  Astrolo- 
gers^ Augtirs^  Medici^  Prophets^  Casters  of  Horoscopes^  Sorcer- 
ers^ Dreain-iiiterpreters^  Sibyllists'^  —  Oriental  charlatans  of 
every  description,  from  Apollonius  of  Tyana  and  Alexander 
of  Abonoteichos  down  to  Peregrinus — is  a  phenomenon  which 

1  In  the  Expositor^  for  Sept.  1881. 

2  2tj3vAAicrTai'.     Plutarch,  Matins,  42.     See  Tac.  Antt,  xii.  52  ;  Hist.  i.  22  ;  ii.  62  ;  Suet. 
Tid.  36,  I'itell.  14  :  Juv.  Sat.  vi.  542. 

35 


546  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

constantly  meets  us  in  the  Age  of  the  Ceesars.  ''  They  ap- 
peared in  Rome  more  than  two  centuries  before  Christ.  En- 
nius  mentions  them  with  contempt.'  As  early  as  B.C.  139, 
they  had  been  ordered  to  quit  Italy  in  ten  days.  In  b.c.  z?> 
they  had  again  been  banished  by  the  ^dile  M.  Agrippa. 
Augustus  and  Tiberius  had  also  directed  severe  edicts  against 
them."  But  they  held  their  ground.^  Tacitus  calls  the  edict 
of  Claudius  "severe  and  ineffectual."  We  see,  both  from 
Tacitus  and  from  the  anecdotage  of  Suetonius,  that  almost 
every  P^mperor  felt  and  indulged  in  some  curiosity  about  these 
divinations.  Tiberius  reckoned  the  "Chaldeean"  Thrasyllus 
among  his  intimate  friends.*  Poppcea,  the  wife  of  Nero,  had 
"many"  of  them  in  her  household.^  Nero  had  his  Balbillus;^ 
Otho  his  Ptolom?eus;^  Vespasian  his  Seleucus;^  Domitian  his 
Ascletarion.**  Agrippina  depended  on  Chald^eans  for  the 
favourable  hour  of  Nero's  usurpation."  There  is  scarcely  one 
of  all  the  Emperors  whose  history  had  not  some  connexion  or 
other  with  auguries,  prophecies,  and  dreams. '^  In  the  reign 
of  Nero  these  prognosticatorswere  brought  into  special  prom- 
inence,'" because  the  restless  and  tortured  conscience  of  the 
Antichrist  was  constantly  seeking  to  pry  into  futurity.  It  is 
remarkable  that  tl^ey  especially  encouraged  his  Oriental 
dreams,  and  that  some  of  them  even  went  as  far  as  to  promise 
him  the  empire  of  Jerusalem. 

It  has,  however,  been  generally  felt  that  the  institution  of 
Prophets  was  not  so  prominent  even  in  Nero's  reign  as  to 
admit  of  our  applying  to  it  the  ten  definite  indications  of  the 
Apocalyptic  seer.  False  prophets  were  hardly  in  any  sense  a 
delei^aie  and  alter  ego  of  the"  Emperor.  There  is  at  least  a 
probability  that  as  one  person  is  specially  pointed  to  by  the 
symbol  of  the  Beast,  so  one  person  is  intended  by  his  False 
Prophet. 

II.  More,  on  the  whole,  is  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the  view 
that  the  Second  Beast,  or  False  Prophet,  is  Simon  Magus. 
In  one  direction  he  corresponds  with  remarkable  closeness  to 
the  symbols.  His  baptism  gave  him  a  certain  lamb-like  sem- 
blance to  Christianity,  while  his  gross  deceptions  were  the 
voice  of  the  serpent.     Christian  tradition,  which  may  well  be 

»  Cic.  De  Div.  i.  58 

'  See  Val.  Max.  i.  3  :  Dion  Cass,  xlix  i  :  Tac.  Atni.  ii.  27,  32  ;  iii.  22  :  iv.  58  ;  vi.  20. 
•  Tac.  .'/«//.  xii.  52.  * 'J'ac.  ^//«.  vi.  21.  5  I'ac. ///>/.  i.  22. 

«  Siurt.  Scro,  36.  "  Suet.  Otho,  4  ;  Tac.  }Iist.  i.  22,  23. 

6  Tac.  ///■«/.  ii.  8.  »  Suet.  Dow  it.  15.  10  Tac.  Atm.  xii.  68. 

"  Suet.  7m/.  Cnexnr,  vii.  61  :   Octav.  94;   Tiber.  i6;   Culis-  57:   Otho,  a\   Titus,  ii.  9; 
Vomit,  xiv.  16.     For  Nero,  see  Tac.  Ann.  xiv.  q. 
>3  Suet.  Ner.  34,  36,  40.     Plin.  H.  N.  xxx.  2. 


THE  ArocALvrsE.  547 

founded  on  facts,  has  much  to  say  about  his  pretended  mira- 
cles, and  two  classes  of  those  miracles  are  of  the  very  charac- 
ter here  indicated.  It  is  said,  for  instance,  that  the  Second 
Beast  makes  fire  come  down  upon  the  earth.  Now  among 
the  miracles  of  Simon  we  are  told  that  one  was  to  appear 
clothed  in  flame.  ^  It  is  said  that  the  Second  Beast  animates 
an  image  of  the  Beast,  and  Simon  is  expressly  said  to  have 
made  statues  move,  so  that  he  may  well  have  also  pretended 
to  make  them  speak. ^  If  he  attempted  this  imposture  at  all 
he  is  more  likely  to  have  applied  it  to  the  statue  of  the  Em- 
peror— "the  image  of  the  Beast" — than  to  any  other.  All 
that  would  have  been  needed  was  a  little  machinery  and  a 
little  ventriloquism.  If  the  Middle  Ages  were  deceived  by 
winking  Madonnas  and  glaring  crucifixes  it  must  have  been 
equally  easy  to  delude  the  Roman  mob  by  moving  statues. 
Further,  it  was  at  Rome  that  Simon  displayed  his  magic 
powers,  and  they  are  said  to  have  been  exercised  with  the 
immediate  object  of  winning  influence  over  Nero.  In  this  the 
legend  declares  that  he  entirely  succeeded,  and  that  his  influ- 
ence was  wielded  to  induce  the  Emperor  to  persecute  and 
massacre  the  Christians.  These  features  appear  not  in  one, 
but  in  many  authors,^  and  though  the  sources  from  which  we 
now  derive  this  information  are  exceedingly  dubious,  there  is 
nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  Simon  Magus  did 
find  his  way  to  Rome — the  reservoir,  as  Tacitus  says,  into 
which  all  things  infamous  and  shameful  flowed^ — and  did  there 
endeavour  to  win  dupes  by  the  same  magical  arts  which  had 
gained  him  so  many  votaries  among  the  simple  Samaritans.^ 
If  we  suppose  that  he  dazzled  the  mind  of  Nero,  and  that  he 
was  one  of  those  men  of  Jewish  race,  who,  with  Aliturus  and 
Josephus,  taught  Nero  and  his  servants  to  discriminate  be- 
tween Jews  and  Christians,  and  to  martyr  the  latter  while 
they  honoured  the  former,  then  in  Simon  Magus  the  Second 
Beast  of  the  Apocalypse — especially  in  the  attributes  of  a 
False  Prophet — would  stand  revealed.  It  is  true  that  the 
Pagan  historians  are  silent  about  him  and  his  doings;  but  the 
events  themselves  had  no  political  significance,  and  lay  out- 

1  Arnobius  {Adv.  Gent.  ii.  12)  speaks  of  Simon  being  precipitated  from  a  fiery  chariot. 
Augustine  {Hner.  i.)  says  that  he  professed  to  have  come  to  the  Apostles  in  fiery  tongues. 
Nicephorus  says  that  he  pretended  to  pass  through  fire  unhurt. 

-  Clem.  Recogu.  iii.  47.     "  I  have  made  statues  move  about." 

J  Justin  Mart.  Apol.  ii.  p.  (^g  ;  Tertull,  De  Anini.  34  ;  De  Praescr.  Haer.  37  ;  Sulp.  Sev. 
Hist.  Sacr.  ii.  42  ;  Clem.  Horn.  ii.  34  ;  iv.  4 :  Recogu.  ii.  9  ;  iii.  47,  57  ;  Constt.  Apost.  vi. 
9  ;  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxi.  5  ;  Arnob.  Adv.  Gentes,  ii.  12  ;  Amhros.  Hexaeui.  iv.  S,  §  33  ;  CA'rill. 
Catech.  6;  Ps.  Egesipp.  De  excidio  Hieros.;  August.  Seriu.  iii.  de  SS.  I'etro  et  Paulo; 
Nicephorus  Cailistus,  H.  K.  ii.  27. 

*  Tac.  A7in.  xv.  46  ; '  v.  supra.,  p.  77.  ^  Acts  viii.  11. 


548  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

side  their  sphere.  They  belong  to  the  history  of  the  Church, 
not  of  the  State.'  And  Tictorinus  seems  to  be  referring  to 
Simon  ^Magus  when,  with  reference  to  the  signs  wrought  by 
the  False  Prophet,  he  says  that  "the  Afagi  do  these  things 
even  to  this  day  by  the  help  of  the  banished  Angels." 

III.  A\'e  now  pass  from  what  may  be  called  the  ecclesias- 
tical and  the  religious  fields  of  conjecture  to  the  political.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  it  is  as  it  were  only  by  an  after- 
thought that  the  Second  Beast  is  called  the  False  Prophet. 
May  we  not  look  for  him  in  another  region  of  Roman  life? 

There  is,  I  think,  much  to  be  said  in  favour  of  Hilde- 
brandt's  suggestion"  that  by  the  False  Prophet,  or  the  "Sec- 
ond Beast  from  the  land,"  is  meant  Vespasian.  Let  us  apply 
to  him  the  ten  indications  which  the  seer  has  furnished. 

1.  Being  a  ''wild  beast''  it  is  a  priori  probable  that  he  will 
belong  to  the  heathen  world.  He  rises  "frorn  the  earth"  or 
"from  the  land."  If  we  take  the  former  rendering  it  may 
point  to  his  taking  his  origin,  as  an  important  power,  not  from 
the  sea,  or  any  sea-washed  peninsula  like  Italy,  whence  Nero 
had  sprung,  but  from  the  vast  continent  of  Asia;  i.e.,  the 
growth  of  his  power  is  connected  with  the  East.  If  the  words 
be  rendered  ''fro7n  the  land,''  they  then  apply  to  Judaea. 
Now  both  Jews^  and  Pagans*  were  struck  with  the  fact  that 
Vespasian,  as  Emperor,  "went  forth  from  judgea, "  and  they 
connected  his  rise  in  that  country  with  many  prophecies  then 
current,  not  only  in  the  East,  but  among  the  Romans  them- 
selves— prophecies  which  were  familiar  to  more  than  one  of 
the  Caesars,  and  had  exercised  no  small  influence  on  their 
aims  and  actions. 

2.  He  had  tzvo  hor?is  like  irnto  a  lamb.  There  is  hardly 
one  of  those  who  have  been  suggested  as  answ^ering  to  the 
False  Prophet  to  whom  this  description  in  any  way  applies. 
To  Vespasian  it  does  apply  in  a  remarkable  manner.  His 
nature  and  his  language,  as  compared  with  those  of  a  Caligula 
and  a  Nero,  were  absolutely  mild.  He  was  indeed  as  indif- 
ferent to  the  blood  and  misery  of  a  hostile  people  as  all  the 
Romans  were;  but  there  was  nothing  naturally  ferocious  and 
sanguinary  in  the  character  of  this  worthy  bourgeois.^     Now 

'  I  have  already  mentioned  that  Justin's  mistake  abotit  a  statue  to  him  as  a  god  was  dis- 
pelled m  1574.  when  the  inscription  to  the  Sabine  god,  Semo  Sancus,  was  found' in  the  place 
which  he  mentions  ;  v.  sufira,  p.  76.  2  Hiicrenfeld's  Zeiischr.  1874. 

\  Jos.  r>.  7.  vi.  5,  §  4.  4  Suet.  fesp.  6. 

**  loscphus  boasts  of  the  generosity  of  Vespasian  as  somcthing'cxtraordinary  {Atttt.  ,\ii.  3,  § 
a,.  His  natural  kindness,  and  freedom  from  hatred  and  revenge,  are  freely  admitted,  and 
may  account  for  liis  external  semblance  to  "a  lamb"  in  the  Apocalyptic  symbol.  Suetonius 
•ays  that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  reign  he  was  '■'■  civilis  et  clemens"  {I'^esp.  11) ; 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  549 

since  the  ten  horns  of  the  first  Beast  are  ten  provincial  gover- 
nors— ten  powers  which  are,  primarily,  a  source  of  his  strength 
— we  should  expect  that  the  two  horns  also  indicated  persons, 
and  especially  persons  more  or  less  imperial  in  their  functions, 
in  whose  existence  lay  the  strength  of  the  Lamb-like  Beast. 
And  this  was  the  exact  position  of  Vespasian.  His  force  lay 
in  the  fact  that  he  had  two  sons^  both  of  than  men  of  mark: 
Titus,  the  conqueror  of  Judaea,  who  kept  the  allegiance  of  the 
army  firm  for  him  while  he  was  awaiting  his  actual  accession 
to  power;  Domitian,  who  headed  his  party  in  Rome.  But  for 
their  assistance  his  cause  could  not  have  prospered  so  de- 
cisively, and  both  of  them  succeeded  to  the  empire  after  his 
death.  ^ 

3.  He  spake  as  a  dragon  or  serpent^  that  is,  he  used  the 
language  generically  of  Paganism,  and  specifically  of  subtle 
and  deceptive  intention.  The  allusion  may  be  to  circumstances 
which  were  better  known  to  St.  John  than  to  us;  but  mean- 
while, whether  it  be  generic  or  specific,  there  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence that  it  is  appropriate  in  a  sketch  of  the  rise  of  Vespa- 
sian, and  corresponds  with  the  serpentine  wisdom  and  caution 
with  which  his  designs  were  carried  out. 

4.  He  is  a  visible  delegate  of,  and  responsible  to,  the  first 
Beast.  This  applies  better  to  Vespasian  than  to  any  one. 
The  first  outbreak  of  the  Jewish  war  i^ook  place  while  Nero 
was  indulging  in  his  frantic  follies  of  asstheticism  in  Greece, 
A.D.  66.  He  instantly  despatched  Vespasian  to  suppress  the 
rebellion.  To  a  general  so  placed  it  would  have  been  an 
easy  matter  to  revolt  against  the  blood-stained  actor  who  then 
afi^icted  the  world.  But  as  long  as  the  Emperor  lived,  Ves- 
pasian, though  not  a  favourite  of  Nero,  remained  conspicu- 
ously faithful. 

5.  And   he  made  the  earth  worship  the  first  Beast,  whose 


that  he  bore  all  kinds  of  opposition  in  the  gentlest  manner  [lenissifne,  c.  13)  ;  and  that  he 
neither  remembered  nor  revenged  injuries  (c.  14).  But  St.  John,  a  Jew  by  birth  and  a  true 
patriot,  saw  with  Jewish  eyes  the  inner  wild-beast  nature  of  the  man.  He  vyould  be  litde  likely 
to  share  in  the  renegade  admiration  of  Josephus  for  the  general  who,  like  his  son,  caused  such 
myriads  of  Jews — 

"  To  swell,  slow  by  the  car's  tall  side, 

The  stoic  tyrant's  philosophic  pride  ; 

To  flesh  tlie  lion's  ravenous  jaws,  and  feel 

The  sportive  fury  of  the  fencer's  steel  ; 

Or  sigh,  deep-plunged  beneath  the  sultry  mine, 

For  the  light  airs  of  balmy  Palestine." 

St.  John's  estimate  of  him  is  that  of  the  Rabbis,  who  narrated  that  he  died  in  frightfu]  tor- 
ments ;  and  that  of  the  2nd  book  of  Esdras,  that  he  ruled  "  with  much  oppression"  (2  Esdr. 
xi.  32). 

'  Titus  and  Domitian  are  probably  the  two  heads  on  each  side  of  the  central  head  of  the 
eagle  in  2  Esdr.  xi.  30,  and  ver.  35  may  allude  to  the  belief  that  Domitian  poisoned  Titus. 


550  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

death-Stroke  was  healed.  To  enforce  subjection  to  Nero, 
who  even  in  his  lifetime  was  "worshipped"  as  a  god,  was  the 
express  object  of  Vespasian's  mission  to  the  Easu.  More- 
over, it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  by  the  Wild  Beast  is 
meant  the  Roman  Empire  in  general  as  well  as  Nero;  and 
Rome  was  worshipped  as  a  goddess  in  many  of  the  provinces.' 
6.  It  might  seem  an  impossibility  that  any  Roman  general 
should  have  pretended  to  work  sig?is,  still  more  that  there 
could  be  anything  in  his  history  which  could  be  specifically 
described  as  a  bringing  down  fire  from  heaven.  It  happens, 
however,  that  Vespasian  is  the  one  Roman — the  only  Roman 
in  high  places,  the  only  Imperial  delegate — to  whom  such  lan- 
guage will  apply.  His  visit  to  Alexandria  was  accompanied  by 
signs  and  wotiders  which  obtained  wide  credence.  Not  only 
had  the  Nile  risen  in  a  single  day  higher  than  it  had  ever 
done  before,  but  Vespasian  was  believed  to  have  w^orked  per- 
sonal miracles.^  He  had  anointed  with  spittle  the  eyes  of  a 
blind  man,  and  restored  his"  sight;  before  a  full  assembly  he 
had  healed  a  cripple;  and  he  had  shown  a  remarkable  ex- 
ample of  second  sight. ^  We  do  not,  indeed,  read  that  he  had 
called  down  fire  from  heaven;  but  that  expression  may  be 
metaphorical  of  the  fire  and  sword  with  which  he  scathed  and 
devastated  Palestine,  and  we  can  see  the  circumstance  which 
may  have  given  shape  to  the  image.  It  represents  the  False 
Prophet  as  a  pseudo-  Elias,  and  there  was  a  circumstance 
which  might  well  have  suggested  a  sort  of  antithesis  between 
the  two.  Vespasian  had  visited  Carmel,  and  had  received  a 
remarkable  communication  from  "the  god  Carmelus"  (evi- 
dently intended  for  Elijah),*  who,  though  not  worshipped 
under  the  form  of  any  image,  had  there  an  altar  which  was 
regarded  as  peculiarly  sacred.  This  god  Carmelus  had  given 
him  an  oracle,  which,  even  in  the  version  of  Suetonius,  re- 
minds us  strongly  of  Dan.  xi.  36,  namely,  that  "everything 
which  he  had  in  his  mind  should  prosper,  however  great  it 
was.'""  As  a  ''fulmen  bclli^'"  and  as  the  supposed  recipient  of 
.1  favourable  oracle  from  Elijah,  Vespasian,  in  his  brilliant 
^accesses  at  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  w^ar,  might  well  be 
-aid,  in  the  style  of  writing  which  constantly  intermingles  the 
symbolic -and  the  literal,  to  have  flashed  fire  from  heaven 
upon  the  enemies  of  the  Beast. 


•  On  the  apotheosis  of  Kmpcrors.  often  even  in  their  lifetime,  see  Sueton.  Octav.  59  ;  Tibci: 
4->:  Claud.  2:  Calig.  22,24;  '"A  9:  Tac.  Ann.  i.  10,74;  iv.  15,37;  '^'V-  31,  etc.,  and 
tu/>r,i,  p.  4.  a  Dion  Cass.  Ixvi.  8  ;  Suet.  Vtsfi.  7.  3  Tac.  Hist.  iv.  82. 

*  kitlcr,-  Erdkunde,  viii.  705.^  Carmel  is  now  called  Mar  Elyas. 
»  Suet.  /Vf/    <;  :  'V.m:.  Hist.  ii.  78. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  55 1 

7.  ¥Le  ^ci'hrs  breath  to  the  image  of  the  Beast  and  makes  it 
speak.  Whether  in  this  instance  again  we  have  some  allusion 
to  the  story  of  a  magic  wonder  current  in  that  day  we  cannot 
tell.  All  that  we  know  is  that  Vespasian  would  certainly  en- 
force homage  and  reverence  from  the  conquered  Jews  to  the 
statues  of  the  Emperor/ which  Nero  was' specially  fond  of 
multiplying,  and  which  the  Jews  regarded  with  peculiar  ab- 
horrence/ In  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah  it  is  made  a  character- 
istic of  Nero  that  "he  shall  erect  his  statue  in  all  cities  before 
his  face."^  Since  Simon  Magus  pretended  to  animate  statues 
with  life,  there  may  have  been  a  rumour  that  something  of 
the  kind  had  taken  place  in  Judaea.  If  not,  the  metaphorical 
meaning — the  reanimation  of  the  Roman  power  in  Palestine, 
which  the  successful  revolt  of  the  Jews  had  for  a  time  ex- 
tinguished— is  quite  sufficient  to  meet  the  language  of  the 
seer. 

8.  Th.Q  putting  to  death  of  those  who  will  not  worship  the 
iniage  of  the  Beast: — the  slaughter,  banishment,  and  sale  into 
slavery,  of  all  who  refused  to  accept  the  imperial  authority, 
reverence  the  imperial  images,  and  accept  the  imperial  coin- 
age, is  a  circumstance  which  will  explain  itself.  It  is  a  sym- 
bolic condensation  of  all  that  had  already  occurred  in  the 
Jewish  w^ar  at  Ascalon,  at  Sepphoris,  at  Gadara,  at  Jotapata, 
at  Gerasa,  at  Japha,  Joppa,  Taricheae,  Giscala,  Gamala,  and 
throughout  the  whole  north  and  west  of  Palestine. 

9.  He  stamps  7iien  of  all  ranks  and  classes,  high  and  low, 
rich  and  poor,  with  the  image  of  his  Beast^  and  the  number  of 
his  name.  This  detail,  which  only  applies  in  the  loosest  pos- 
sible manner  to  any  of  the  others  who  have  been  regarded  as 
the  antitypes  of  the  False  Prophet,  suits  Vespasian  very 
closely.  It  exactly  describes  his  natural  conduct  in  giving 
his  soldiers  the  brand  of  their  service,*  and  exacting  from  all 
classes  the  oath  of  allegiance,  making  them  swear  "by  the 
genius  of  Ceesar" — first  of  Nero,  then  of  Galba. 

Lastly,  10.  The  forbidding  all  to  buy  and  sell  who  have  not 
got  the  mark  of  the  Beast,  seems  to  be  a  very  natural  remini- 
scence of  one  of  Vespasian's  most  remarkable  acts.  When 
Nero  was  dead,  and  Galba  murdered,  and  Otho  also  had  com- 
mitted suicide  after  the  terrible  battle  of'  Eedriacum,  neither 
Vespasian  nor  his  soldiers  felt  inclined  to  obey  the  imbecile 

— — 1; 

1  Jos.  Afiil.  xviii.  8,  §  I. 

2  "Tlie  image  of  the  beast  is  clearly  the  statue  oi  the  lunpcror." — Milinan. 

3  Ascens.  Isa.  iv.  ii  ;  Lactam,  ii.7. 

^  See  Ronsch,  Das  N.   T.  Tertulliaiis^  p.  7«c. 


552  THE    KARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANriY. 

rule  of  the  glutton  Vitelliiis.  Vespasian  accepted  his  own 
nomination  to  the  Empire  by  the  legions  of  Mucianus  as  well 
as  by  his  own  soldiers,  and  he  hastened  to  make  himself  mas- 
ter of  the  occasion  by  establishing  his  headquarters  at  Alexan- 
dria. Any  ruler  who  had  hold  of  Alexandria  could  command 
the  allegiance  of  fegypt,  and  the  lord  of  Egypt  could  always 
put  his  hand  upon  the  very  throat  of  Rome.  For  if  the  corn 
ships  did  not  sail  from  Alexandria  the  populace  of  Rome  was 
starved.  Accordingly,  the  first  thing  which  Vespasian  did 
\sdiS  \.o  forbid  all  exports  from  Alexandria.  That  stern  edict 
was  felt  throughout  the  Empire.  The  object  of  it  was  to 
starve  Rome  into  an  absolute  acceptance  of  his  "mark  of  the 
Beast,"  i.e.^  his  imperial  claim.  It  was  entirely  successful. 
Galba,  Otho,  and  even  Vitellius,  were  regarded  as  isolated 
military  usurpers;  Vespasian,  the  Wild  Beast's  delegate,  the 
Wild  Beast's  miraculous  upholder,  mounted  the  Wild  Beast's 
throne,  and  like  him  became  one  of  the  seven  heads,  and 
wielded  the  power  of  the  ten  provincial  horns — once  rebellious 
— now  subdued;  often  inimical  to  the  harlot-city,  but  always 
faithful  to  the  Roman  Empire.^ 

To  me  these  circumstances,  which  I  have  drawn  out  in 
my  own  way,  but  of  which  the  original  discovery  is  due  to 
Hildebrandt,  seem  to  be  nearly  decisive.  My  only  doubt  is 
whether,  in  that  subtle  interchange  of  ideas  which  marks  all 
symbolic  literatures,  St.  John  may  -iwt  have  mingled  tiao  concep- 
tions in  his  description  of  the  Second  Beast.  If  so,  I  should 
feel  no  doubt  that  the  subordinate  monster  was  meant  to  com- 
bine the  features  observable  in  the  position  and  conduct  of 
Simon  Magus,  as  the  False  Prophet  and  Impostor  who  sup- 
ported Nero  at  Rome,  and  of  Josephus  the  False  Prophet  who 
embraced  the  cause  of  Vespasian  in  Palestine,  with  that  of 
Vespasian  himself  as  a  two-horned  Wild  Beast  maintaining 
the  power  of  Rome  in  the  Holy  Land.  The  composite  char- 
acter of  such  a  symbol  presents  no  difficulty.  It  closely  cor- 
responds with  known  apocalyptic  methods; — and  certainly  in 
this  instance  if  the  Second  Wild  Beast  and  False  Prophet  be 
regarded  as  a  composite  symbol  (as  is  suggested  by  the  alter- 
native description),  I  think  that  I  have  here  offered  a  closer 
approximation  to  every  one  of  the  requirements  of  the  ima- 
gery than  I  have  found   in  the  pages  of  any  other  interpreter. 

Lastly,  to  revert  for  one  moment  to  the  return  of  the  Anti- 
christ in  the  person  of  Nero,  it  is — as  I  have  said — in  apo- 


Icv.  xvii.  12,  13,  16,  17. 


THE   APOCALYPSE.  553 

calyptic  and  Oriental  style  amply  fulfilled  in  the  reign  of 
Domitian.  If  Galba,  Otho,  and  Vitellius  be  omitted  from  the 
list  as  mere  transitory  usurpers  who  would  hardly  be  regarded 
as  Emperors  at  all,  then  Nero  the  fifth  Emperor  ^/^  reappear, 
not  indeed  in  person^  but  in  symbol,  in  the  eighth  Emperor, 
Domitian/  Even  Titus  was  regarded  as  likely  to  be  a  coming 
Nero."^  The  Jews  were  very  far  from  looking  upon  him  as 
the  a?nor  et  deliciae  hiimatii  generis.  It  is  probable  that  Sul- 
picius  Severus  may  be  preserving  for  us  the  testimony  of 
Tacitus  when  (ii.  97)  he  attributes  to  Titus  the  thoroughly 
Neronian  and  Antichristian  purpose  of  uprooting  both  Chris- 
tianity and  Judaism  in  one  and  the  same  stroke.  This  pur- 
pose, if  he  ever  had  it,  he  did  not  live  to  carry  out.  But 
Domitian,  at  any  rate,  was,  like  Nero,  an  open  persecutor  of 
Christianity.  Tertullian  not  only  sets  him  side  by  side  with 
Nero,  but  even  calls  him  "a  fragment  of  Nero,  as  far  as  his 
cruelty  was  concerned,"  and  a  sub-Nero.^  In  Domitian  the 
Christians  saw  the  legend  of  Nero  redivivus  symbolically  and 
effectively  if  not  literally  fulfilled. 

So  great  was  the  resemblance  between  him  and  his  blood- 
stained prototype  that  the  common  nickname  of  Domitian  in 
Rome  was  ''the  bald  Nero.''  "Titus,"  says  Ausonius,  "was 
fortunate  in  the  shortness  of  his*rule:  his  brother  followed 
himx,  whom  his  Rome  called  'a  bald  Nero;'  "*  and  Juvenal 
talks  of  the  time  when  "the  last  Flaviuswas  rending  the  half- 
dead  world,  and  Rome  was  enslaved  to  the  bald  Nero.""  The 
identification  of  the  spirit  of  Domitian  with  that  of  Nero  was 
also  familiar  to  Christian  historians.  Eusebius  says  that  to- 
wards the  close  of  his  reign  Domitian  established  himself  as  a 
successor  of  Nero's  hatred  to  God  and  hostility  against  Him.'' 
It  was  natural  to  St.  John  to  symbolise  Nero  as  "the  Wild 
Beast, ' '  and  the  very  same  term  {imma7iissima  bellua)  is  applied 
by  Pliny  to  Domitian.''  Tacitus  even  draws  a  parallel  be- 
tween the  two  to  the  advantage  of  Nero."  Both  showed  the 
wild  beast  nature,  but  the  ferocity  of  Domitian  was  more 
cruel  and  more  innate.  In  him  the  death-wounded  Antichrist 
was  once  more  restored  to  life. 

1  The  Eight  would  then  be  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Gains,  Claudius,  Nero,  Vespasian,  Titus, 
Nero  again  in  the  form  of  Domitian  ;  so  that  Nero  was,  and  is  not,  and  yet  was  to  recur  :  he 
was  at  on:e  the  fifth  and  the  eighth. 

2  "Denique  propaUim  aliuni  Neronon  et  opinabantur  et  praedicabant "  (Suet.  Tit.  7). 

3  Tert.  A/>ol.  5,  De  Pall.  4.  4  Auson.  MoTiost.  de  Ord.  XII.  Imp.  11,  12. 
^  Juv.  Sat.  iy,  34,  35. 

*  TeAevTwi/  t^s  Ne'pwi/os  fieoex^ptaj  Te  Kai  OeonapxCa^  SidSoxov  eavTov  Karea-nqaaTO  (Euseb. 
•//.  £.  iii.  i;).  7  Paneg.  48. 

8  Tac.  Ag;ric.  45  :   "Nero  tamcn  subtra.xit  oculos,  jussitque  scelera  non  spcctavit." 


554  I'lIK   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


SECTION   VII. 

THE   VIALS, 

We  have  now  passed  in  review  all  the  more  difficult  Apo- 
calyptic visions.  A  great  part  of  the  remainder  of  the  Book 
is  occupied  with  scenes  which  require  but  little  comment,  and 
convey  directly  their  own  great  lessons.  First,  we  have  the 
glorious  vision  of  the  Lamb  upon  Mount  Zion  with  the  re- 
deemed and  virgin  multitude.  Then  three  Angels  fly  in  rapid 
succession  through  the  mid  region  of  heaven.  The  first  bears 
in  his  hand  an  eternal  gospel  which  must  be  preached  to  every 
nation,  tribe,  tongue,  and  people  before  the  End.^  The  sec- 
ond cries  out  in  prophetic  anticipation,  ''Fallen,  fallen  is 
Babylon  the  Great."  A  third  utters  an  awful  warning  to  the 
Gentiles  who  worship  the  Beast  and  receive  his  mark.  Then 
a  Voice  proclaims  the  blessedness  of  the  dead  who  die  in  the 
Lord  from  henceforth,  and  immediately  afterwards  there  ap- 
pears on  a  white  cloud  one  like  unto  the  Son  of  Man,  wear- 
ing a  golden  crown  and  grasping  a  sharp  sickle.  Then  fol- 
lows the  harvest  of  the  elect,  and  the  vintage  of  the  wTath  of 
God,  which  seems  to  take  place  in  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,' 
and  of  which  the  imagery  is  tinged  by  reminiscences  of  the 
terrible  Jewish  War,  with  its  deluge  of  rolling  blood^ — rolling 
200  miles,  or,  roughly,  the  whole  length  from  Tyre  to  Rhino- 
colura,  from  north  to  south  of  the  Holy  Land." 

Then,  after  an  episode  of  resplendent  triumph  and  thanks- 
giving in  heaven,  seven  Angels,  arrayed  in  precious  stone,'* 
j)our  out  their  vials  of  wrath  upon  the  heathen  world.*  Like 
the  plagues  of  the  first  four  trumpets,  they  affect  the  earth, 
and  the  sea,  and  the  rivers,'  and  the  heavenly  bodies,  the  seat 
<.)f  the  Beast,  and  the  River  Euphrates,  and  they  are  ended 
by  the  terrible  phenomena  of  storm  and  earthquake.  They 
are  again  but  a  vivid  picture  of  the  repeated  signs  in  the  sun, 


'  Matt.  xxiv.  14. 

'  kcv.  xiy.  20  ;  Isa.  xvii.  5  :  Ixiii.  1-6  ;  Joel  iv.  2,  11-14 ;  Mic.  iv.  13  ;  Hab,  iii.  12. 

3  Isa.  Ixiii.  3  ;  comp.  Knoch  xcviii.  3  :  "The  horse  shall  wade  up  to  his  breast,  and  the 
chariot  shall  sink  to  his  axle  in  the  blood  of  sinners."  So  too  Silius  Italicus  (iii.  704)  speaks 
of  "ll.iinmam  exspirare  furentes  comipodes,  iiiultoque  Jl uentia  sanguine  lorn." 

*  Jerome,  /«:/.  nd  Dard.  states  this  at  160  miles  ;  bu:  the  deluge  of  blood  began  to  roll 
from  a  point  far  north  of 'lyre. 

^  \m^.  \iOov,  A.  ('.Villi,'.,  and  some  MSS.  known  to  Andreas.  Comp.  Ezek.  xxviii.  13 
(naura  Aifloi'  xp/jtrTbr  ivBtScvai),  "  Kvery  precious  stone  was  thy  covering"  (see  Westcott  and 
liort.  Cr^t/i  lest.  ii.  ad  /oc,  and  compare  Milton's— 

"  His  vaunting  foe 
Thoiiph  huge,  and  in  a  lock  of  diamond  armed"). 

«  IC/ck.  xxii.  Jl  ;  Zepli.  iii.  S.  •  ((.inj).  Wisd.  xi.  15-16;   xvi.  i,  9  ;  xvii.  2,  segq. 


THE  APOCALYPSE.  555 

and  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  the  distress  of  nations  with  per- 
plexity, the  sea  and  waves  roaring,  men's  hearts  faihng  them 
for  fear,  and  the  shaking  of  the  powers  of  heaven,  of  which 
Christ  had  prophesied/  At  the  outpouring  of  the  sixth  Vial, 
the  Euphrates  is  metaphorically  dried  up  to  prepare  for  the 
invasion  of  the  kings  of  the  East;  and  out  of  the  mouths  of 
the  Devil,  the  Beast,  and  the  False  Prophet  come  three  froglike 
spirits  of  demons  working  miracles  which  gather  the  heathen 
kings  to  the  great  battle  of  Har-Magedon — a  symbol  of  satanic 
opposition  gathering  to  a  final  head,  and  meeting  with  its  final 
overthrow.  ■' 

The  seventh  Angel  pours  out  his  vial  on  the  air.  There 
are  thunders  and  a  mighty  earthquake.  The  great  city  (Jeru- 
salem) is  divided  into  three;  the  cities  of  the  Gentiles  fall; 
Rome — the  mystic  Babylon — comes  into  remembrance  before 
God  for  vengeance;  islands  and  mountains  flee  away,  and 
there  is  a  mighty  plague  of  hail.  We  seem  here  to  be  in  a  re- 
gion beyond  the  limits  of  history;  but  we  can  see  that  the 
images  were  in  part  suggested  by  that  remarkable  epoch  of 
earthquakes  w^hich  affected  especially  the  cities  of  Asia,  and 
by  the  three  camps  occupied  by  the  army  of  Titus,  and  the 
three  factions  which  occupied  the  three  regions  of  Jerusalem 
— Simon  in  Bezetha,  John  in  the  Upper  City,  Eleazar  in  the 
Temple — and  tore  it  to  pieces  with  their  internecine  fury. 

Then  the  great  harlot  city  (Rome),  drunken  with  the  blood 
of  the  Neronian- martyrs,  is  judged.  Her  judgment  comes  in 
part  from  the  ten  horns,  which  should  have  been  the  source 
of  her  strength,  but  which  hate  her,  and  eat  her  flesh,  and 
burn  her  with  fire.  Part  at  least  of  the  symbol  corresponds 
with  the  horrors  inflicted  upon  Rome  and  Romans  in  the  civil 
wars  by  provincial  governors — already  symbolised  as  the  horns 
of  the  Wild  Beast,  and  here  characterised  as  kings  yet  king- 
domless.  Such  were  Galba,  Otho,  Vitellius,  and  Vespasian. 
Vespasian  and  Mucianus  deliberately  planned  to  starve  the 
Roman  populace;'  and  in  the  fierce  struggle  of  the  Vitellians 
against  Sabinus  and  Domitian,  and  the  massacre  which  fol- 
lowed, there  occurred  the  event  which  sounded  so  porten- 
tously in  the  ears  of  every  Roman — the  burning  to  the  ground 


i  Luke  xxi.  25,  26.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  practical  identity  of  the  seals,  trumpets, 
and  vials  was  known  by  tradition  even  to  the  earliest  commentators ;  v.  supra^  pp.  145,  150, 
170. 

2  The  hill  and  plain  of  Me^iddo  were  the  scenes  of  great  battles.  They  are  in  the  Plain  of 
Jezreel,  the  battle-field  of  Palestine  (Judg.  v.  19  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  29  ;  Zech.  xii.  11).  Hence 
Ewaid's  conjecture  that  Har-Magedon  is  a  cypher  for  Rome  the  Great  (Ha  Romah  Haggedo- 
lah)  is  needless.  Otherwise  we  might  see  here  another  instance  of  Gematria,  for  Ilar-Sfage- 
don  and  Koinuh  Ifngetiotah  are  both  =  304.  3  j^g   /y    y  \^    j^^  g  ^ 


556  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  the  Temple  of  the  Capitoline  Jupiter,  on  December  19th, 
A.D.  6g.'  It  was  not  the  least  of  the  signs  of  the  times  that 
the  space  of  one  year  saw  wrapped  in  flames  the  two  most 
hallowed  shrines  of  the  ancient  v/orld — the  Temple  of  Jerusa- 
lem and  the  Temple  of  the  great  Latin  god.  The  Jews  were 
not  alone  in  interpreting  these  events  of  the  final  dissolution 
of  the  Empire.  Josephus  saw,  in  the  establisliment  of  the 
Flavian  dynasty,  "the  unexpected  deliverance  of  the  fortunes 
of  Rome  from  ruin;"^  Tacitus  looked  on  the  year  a.d.  68  as 
one  which  threatened  to  be  the  final  year  of  the  Roman  com- 
monwealth.^ The  Apocalyptist  of  //.  Esdras  says  of  the 
Eagle  in  which  he  symbolises  Rome,  "Thou  hast  afflicted  the 
weak,  thou  hast  hurt  the  peaceable,  thou  hast  loved  liars, 
and  hast  cast  down  walls  of  such  as  did  thee  no  harm;  there- 
fore appear  no  more,  O  Eagle!  nor  thy  horrible  wings,  nor 
thy  wicked  feathers,  nor  thy  malicious  heads,  nor  thy  hurtful 
claws,  nor  all  thy  vain  body."  (2  Esdr.  xi.  42 — 46.)  The 
author  of  the  Book  of  Baruch  says  of  Rome,  the  city  which 
afflicted  Jerusalem,  "Fire  shall  come  upon  her  from  the  Ever- 
lasting, long  to  endure;  and  she  shall  be  inhabited  of  devils 
for  a  great  time"  (Bar,  iv.  35). 

The  next  chapters  are  occupied  by  the  mingled  wail  and 
paean  over  the  doom  of  fallen  Babylon,  which  is  echoed  in 
heaven.^  The  armies  of  heaven  ride  forth  after  the  Word  of 
God,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air  are  summoned  to  feed  on  the 
flesh  of  kings  and  captains  slain  in  impious  battle.  The 
Beast  and  the  False  Prophet  are  cast  into  the  Lake  of  Fire, 
and  their  followers  nre  slain  by  the  sword  of  the  heavenly 
Rider.  Satan  is  bound  for  a  thousand  years,  and  the  Millen- 
nium of  the  Saints  begins.^  When  the  thousand  years  are 
ended,  Satan  is  to  be  loosed  to  gather  all  the  heathen,  Gog 
and  Magog,"  to  the  final  battle  against  God,  after  which  he 
shall  be  flung  to  join  the  Beast  and  the  False  Prophet  in  the 
Lake  of  Fire.  The  great  White  Throne  is  set.  The  dead 
are  judged.  There  is  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.  Glowing 
with  gold  and  gems,'  the   New  Jerusalem   descends   out  of 


1  Tac.  //.  jii.  83  :  Jos.  n.  7.  iv.  11,^  4.  2  Jos.  B.  J.  iv.  ii,  §  5. 

*  'J'hc  tvyprcssion  throughout  chapters  xvii.-xvlii.  are  almost  entirely  borrowed  from  the  an- 
cient prophets  (Is.n.  xiii.,  xxiii.,  xxiv.,  etc.  ;  Jer.  xvi.,  xxv.  :  Kzek.  xxvi.,  xxvii.  ;  Amos  vi.  5-7). 
A  literal  miliciiananism  has  been  generally  condemned  by  the  Catholic  Church.     Victori- 
nus  and  the  earliest  commentators  understood  the  1,000  years  to  have  begun  at  the  Incarna- 
*"^"«  „     .'^'^•"  ^"''  ""^*'  "*^  ''^"^  Fathers  understood  it  spiritually  and  metaphorically. 

Harbarian  nations  from  the  North  (Kzek.  xxxviii.,  xxxix).     Abarbanel  on  Jer.  xxx.  calls 
them  nations  from  the  East. 

'  Derived  from  Is.  liv.  i?  ;  and  coinp.  Valkul  Shimeoni.  f  54,  a. 


THE   FALL   OF   JERUSALEM.  55/ 

heaven  from  God/  through  whose  streets  flows,  bright  as 
crystal,  the  River  of  the  water  of  life,  and  there  is  no  Tem- 
ple there,  nor  light  of  moon  nor  sun,  for  the  Lord  God  gives 
them  light; — and  there  shall  be  no  more  curse.'"'  The  book 
ends  with  that  which  is  the  burden  of  the  whole — Yea!  I 
come  quickly.  And  the  seer  answers,  as  all  Christians  have 
ever  answered.  Amen!     Come,  Lord  Jesus !^ 

And  thus  the  whole  book,  from  beginning  to  end,  teaches 
the  great  truths — Christ  shall  triumph!  Christ's  enemies  shall 
be  overcome!  They  who  hate  Him  shall  be  destroyed;  they 
who  love  Him  shall  be  blessed  unspeakably.  The  doom  alike 
of  Jew  and  of  Gentile  is  already  imminent.  On  Judaea  and 
Jerusalem,  on  Rome  and  her  Empire,  on  Nero  and  his 
adorers,  the  judgment  sha'll  fall.  Sword  and  fire,  and  famine 
and  pestilence,  and  storm  and  earthquake,  and  social  agony 
and  political  terror  are  nothing  but  the  woes  which  are  usher- 
ing in  the  Messianic  reign.  Old  things  are  rapidly  passing 
away.  The  light  upon  the  visage  of  the  old  dispensation  is 
vanishing  and  fading  into  dimness,  but  the  face  of  Him  who 
is  as  the  sun  is  already  dawning  through  the  East.  The  new 
and  final  covenant  is  instantly  to  be  established  amid  terrible 
judgments;  and  it  is  to  be  so  established  as  to  render  impos- 
sible the  continuance  of  the  old.  Maranatha!  The  Lord  is 
at  hand!  Even  so  come,  Lord  Jesus!  Mane  iiobiscum  Domine^ 
nam  advesperascit ! 


CHAPTER    XXIX. 

THE    FALL    OF    JERUSALEM. 

"The  Lord,  whose  fire  is  in  Zion,  and  His  furnace  in  Jerusalem"  (Isa.  xxxi.  9). 
"What  was  the  cause  of  the  destruction  of  the  Second  Temple,  seeing  that  the  age  was 
distinguished  for  the  study  of  the  laws? It  w^s  groundless  hatred'''  (Yoma,  f.  9,  <^). 

There  is  no  need  to  dwell  upon  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem. 
Very  little  can  be  added  to  the  horrible  story  beyond  what  is 

1  The  Rabbis  inferred  from  Ps.  cxxii.  3,  that  there  was  "  a  Jerusalem  above  "  (Taanith,  f 
5,  a)  ;  and  Rabi  Johanan  says.  "The  Holy  One  will  bring  precious  stones  and  pearls,  each 
measuring  30  cubits  by  30.  and  after  polishing  them  down  to  20  cubits  by  20,  will  place  them 
in  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  "  (Bava  Bathra,  f.  25,  a).  Again,  "The  Jerusalem  of  this  world  is 
not  as  the  Jerusalem  of  the  world  to  come.  'I'he  former  is  open  to  all  ;  to  the  latter  (Rev.  xxi. 
5)  none  shall  go  up  but  those  who  are  ordained  to  enter"  {id.  75,  b).  As  to  its  height  (Rev. 
xxi.  16)  the  Rabbis  say  that  God  will  place  it  on  the  summits  of  Mounts  Sinai,  Tabor,  and 
Carmel  (Isa.  ii.  2).  _  2  Zech.  xiv.  11. 

•'  The  solemn  curse  against  any  one  who  adds  to,  or  takes  from,  the  book,  was  not  uncom- 
mon in  days  when  literary  forgery  and  interpolation  were  remarkably  common.  Thus  Irenseus 
ended  one  of  his  books  with  the  words  : — "I  adjure  you,  copyists  of  this  book,  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  by  His  glorious  coming  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,  that  you  compare 
an'^'.  carefully  correct  your  copy  by  this  exemplar,  and  likewise  place  this  adjuration  in  your 
copy"  [Of p.  \.  p.  821,  ed.  Stieren).  A  similar  passage  is  found  at  the  end  of  Rufinus"s  pro- 
logue to  his  version  of  Qrigen's  De  Principiis  (see  Huidekoper,  Judaism  at  Rome.,  p.  289). 


558  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  be  read  by  every  one  in  the  pages  of  Josephus/  It  is  true 
that  Josephiis  has  effectually  blackened  his  own  memory.  It 
would  have  been  well  for  him  if  he  had  only  written  the  An- 
tiquities and  the  Dialogue  against  Apion.  In  his  Jewish  IVar, 
and,  above  all,  in  his  autobiography,  he  stands  confessed  as  a 
false,  heartless,  and  designing  renegade.  The  man  who, 
standing  in  sight  of  the  ruins  of  Zion  and  the  blackened  area 
on  which  had  shone  the  Holy  of  Holies,  complacently  tells 
us  how  Titus  gave  him  other  lands  in  Judaea,  because  those 
which  he  had  possessed  near  Jerusalem  had  become  useless; 
the  man  who  gloatingly  recounts  the  honours  heaped  upon 
him  by  the  conquerors  who  flung  thousands  of  his  brave 
countrymen  to  the  wild  beasts,  and  sold  tens  of  thousands 
more  into  brutal  misery;  the  man  who,  in  the  sumptuous 
palace  which  he  owed  to  his  conqueror,  could  detail  without 
a  sob  the  extermination  of  his  people;  the  man  who  could 
gaze  with  complacent  infamy  on  the  triumph  which  told  of  the 
destruction  of  his  nation's  liberty,  and  could  look  on  while 
the  hallowed  vessels  of  the  Sanctuary  were  held  aloft  before 
a  Pagan  populace  by  bloodstained  hands;  the  man  who  in 
youth  haunted  the  boudoir  of  Poppaea,  and  in  old  age  hung 
about  the  antechambers  of  Domitian;  the  man  who  pursued 
with  the  posthumous  hatred  of  successful  treachery  the  brave 
though  misguided  patriots  who  had  held  it  a  glory  to  die  for 
Jerusalem — must  stand  forth  till  the  end  of  time  in  the  im- 
mortal infamy  which  his  own  writings  have  heaped  upon  him- 
self.^ We  cannot  be  surprised  that  all  the  patriots  of  his  na- 
tion hated  him,  and  tried  to  disturb  his  base  prosperity  and 
"gilded  servitude."  No  one  trusts  the  word  of  Josephus 
where  he  has  the  least  interest  in  palming  off  upon  us  a  de- 
ception. But  he  had  no  particular  reason  to  misrepresent  the 
general  facts  of  the  awful  and  heroic  struggle  in  which  for  a 
few  months  he  bore  a  part.  And  since  the  writings  of  Justus 
of  Tiberias,  and  Antonius  Primus  have  perished,  as  well  as  the 
later  part  of  the  History  of  Tacitus,  Josephus  becomes  our  sole 
guide.  The  Talmud  has  almost  nothing  to  tell  us.  In  it  we 
look  in  vain  for  the  names  of  John,  or  Simon,  or  Eleazar.  We 
only  see  a  dim  glimpse  of  flames  and  assassination,  and  ruin, 
mixed  up  with  curious  legends  and  tales  of  individual  agony.' 

•  For  modem  narratives  derived  from  him,  see  F.  de  Saulcy,  Les  Derniers  Jours  de  Je- 
rusnUm,  1866  ;  Milnian,  Hist.  0/  Christianity,  vol.  iii.  ;  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Koitinus. 
ch.  lix  ;   Kwald.  Gfsch.  vi.  696-813. 

3  Sec  Dcrcnboiirj;.  p.  264,  and  n.  xi.  ;  Gratz,  iii.  365,  scq.,  386,  411  ;  Salvador,  Hist.  ii. 
467;   l)c  (^iiinccy,  M'orks, 

'  Dcrcnlx)iirg,  pp.  266,  282-288.  Snme  of  tlie  stories  which  Josephus  recounts  of  himself 
arc  transferred  m  the  Talmud  to  the  celebrated  Rabbi  Yochanan  Ben  Zakkai. 


THE   FALL   OF  JERUSALEM.  559 

In  April,  a.d.  70,  Titus,  with  a  force  of  80,000  legionaries 
and  auxiliaries,  pitched  his  camp  on  Scopus,  to  the  north  of 
the  city.  Besides  the  2,400  trained  Jewish  warriors  who  de- 
fended the  walls,  the  city  was  thronged  with  an  incredible 
number  of  Passover  pilgrims,  and  of  fugitives  from  other  parts 
of  Judcea.  Feats  of  heroic  valour  were  performed  on  both 
sides,  and  the  skill  of  the  besiegers  was  often  checked  by  the 
almost  insane  fury  of  the  besieged.  Fanatically  relying  on 
the  visible  manifestation  of  Jehovah,  while  they  were  in- 
famously violating  all  His  laws,  the  Zealots  rejected  with  in- 
sult every  offer  of  terms.  At  last  Titus  drew  a  line  of  circum- 
vallation  round  the  doomed  city,  and  began  to  crucify  all  the 
deserters  who  fled  to  him.  The  incidents  of  the  famine  which 
then  fell  on  the  besieged  are  among  the  most  horrible  in  human 
literature.  The  corpses  bred  a  pestilence.  Whole  houses 
were  filled  with  unburied  families  of  the  dead.  Mothers  slew 
and  devoured  their  own  children.  Hunger,  rage,  despair, 
and  madness  seized  the  city.  It  became  a  cage  of  furious 
madmen,  a  city  of  howling  wild  beasts,  and  of  cannibals, — a 
hell!'  For  the  first  time  for  five  centuries,  on  July  17,  a.d. 
70,  the  daily  sacrifices  of  the  Temple  ceased  for  want  of  priests 
to  offer  them.  Disease  and  slaughter  ruthlessly  accomplished 
their  work.  At  last,  amid  shrieks  and  flames,  and  suicide 
and  massacre,  the  Temple  was  taken  and  reduced  to  ashes. 
The  great  altar  of  sacrifice  was  heaped  with  the  slain.  The 
courts  of  the  Temple  swam  deep  in  blood.  Six  thousand  m.is- 
erable  women  and  children  sank  with  a  wild  cry  of  terror  amid 
the  blazing  ruins  of  the  cloisters.  Romans  adored  the  insignia 
of  their  legions  on  the  place  where  the  Holiest  had  stood.  As 
soon  as  they  became  masters  of  the  Upper  City  they  only 
ceased  to  slay  when  they  were  too  weary  to  slay  any  longer. 
According  to  Josephus,  it  had  been  the  earnest  desire  of  Titus 
to  preserve  the  Temple,  but  his  commands  were  disobeyed 
by  his  soldiers  in  the  fury  of  the  struggle.  According  to 
Sulpicius  Severus,  on  the  other  hand,  who  is  probably  quoting 
the  very  words  of  Tacitus,  Titus  formed  the  deliberate  pur- 
pose to  destroy  Christianity  and  Judaism  in  one  blow,  be- 
lieving that  if  the  Jewish  root  were  torn  up  the  Christian 
branch  would  soon  perish.^     The  tallest  and  most  beautiful 

1  Renan,  U Antechrist,  507. 

2  "Alii  et  Titus  ij>se  evertendum  templum  imprimis  censebant,  quo  pleinus  Judaei.rum  et 
Chnstianorum  religio  tollcretur.  Quippe  has  religiones  licet  contrarias  sibi,  iisdem  tameu 
aucloribus  profectas  ;  radice  sublata  stirpem  facile  perltiirani "  (Sulp.  Sev.  Sacr.  ffist.  ii.  30, 
§  6,  7).  He  had  access  both  to  the  lost  part  of  th<;  Histories  of  Tacitus,  and  also  to  the  work 
of  Antonius  Juhanus,  De  Judaeis.     The  latter,  who  was  one  of  Titus's  council  of  war,  wrote 


560  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

youths  were  reserved  for  the  conqueror's  triumph.  Of  those 
above  seventeen  years  of  age  multitudes  were  doomed  to  work 
in  chains  in  the  Egyptian  mines.  Others  were  sent  as  pre- 
sents to  various  towns  to  be  slain  by  wild  beasts  or  gladiators, 
or  by  each  other's  swords  in  the  provincial  amphitheatres. 
The  young  of  both  sexes  were  sold  as  slaves.  Even  during 
the  days  on  which  these  arrangements  were  being  made, 
ii,ooo  perished  for  want  of  food;  some  because  their  guards 
would  not  give  it  to  them,  others  because  they  would  not 
accept  it.  Josephus  reckons  the  number  of  captives  taken 
during  the  war  at  97,000,  and  the  number  of  those  who  per- 
ished during  the  siege  at  1,100,000.  The  numbers  w4io  per- 
ished in  the  whole  war  are  reckoned  at  the  awful  total  of 
1,337,490,  and  the  number  of  prisoners  at  101,700;  but  even 
these  estimates  do  not  include  all  the  items  of  many  skirm- 
ishes and  battles,  nor  do  they  take  into  account  the  multitudes 
who,  throughout  the  whole  country,  perished  of  misery,  fam- 
ine, and  disease.  It  may  well  be  said  that  the  nation  seemed 
to  have  given  itself  "a  rendezvous  of  extermination."  Two 
thousand  putrefying  bodies  were  found  even  in  the  subter- 
ranean vaults  of  the  city.  During  the  siege  all  the  trees  of 
the  environs  had  been  cut  down,  and  hence  the  whole  appear- 
ance of  the  place,  with  its  charred  and  bloodstained  ruins, 
was  so  completely  altered,  that  one  who  Vv^as  suddenly  brought 
to  it  would  not  (we  are  told)  have  recognised  where  he  was. 
And  yet  the  site  had  been  so  apparently  impregnable,  with  its 
massive  and  unequalled  fortifications,  that  Titus  freely  de- 
clared that  he  saw  in  his  victory  the  hand  of  God.^  From 
that  time  all  Jews  on  seeing  Jerusalem  rend  their  garments, 
and  exclaim,  "Zion  is  a  wilderness,  Jerusalem  a  desolation. 


with  far  less  biassed  motives  than  Josephus.  who  is  not  to  be  trusted  when  he  had  anything  to 
gain  by  disguising  the  truth.  Dr.  Hernays,  of  Breslau,  beHeves  that  Sulpicius  Severus  is 
quoting  Tacitus  in  the  sentence  quoted  above.  Gratz  (iii.  403)  contemptuously  rejects  this 
sug;icsticn,  on  the  ground  that  Titus  could  scarcely  have  heard  of  the  Christians.  But  Titus 
saw  a  great  deal  of  Josephus  and  of  Agrippa  II.,  and  there  are  signs  that  Josephus  knew  a  good 
deal  more  about  Christianity  than  he  ventures  to  say,  and  that  Agrippa  had  not  been  uninflu- 
enced bv  the  arguments  of  St.  Paul  (see  Derenbourg,  p.  252).  On  the  other  hand,  Ewald 
thinks  that  this  assertion  as  to  the  purpose  of  Titus  is  weakened  by  the  repetuion  of  it  in  the 
case  of  Hadrian  :  "existimans  se  Christianam  fidem  loci  injuria"  [i.e..  by  profaning  the  site 
of  the  Tcmphi)  "pcreniturum"  (Sulp.  Sev.,  Sacr.  Hist.  ii.  31,  §  3  ;   Ewald,  Cesc/i.  vi.  797). 

'  It  i.s  curious  to  contrast  the  pious,  gentle,  and  amiable  Titus  of  Jo.sephus,  and  the  "Love 
;in(l  darling  of  the  human  race  "  of  Roman  historians,  with  "Titus  the  liad"  (Ha-Rasha),  or 
*|  the  "I'yrant,"  of  the  Talmudists.  Their  well-known  legend  tells  that,  being  caught  in  a  ter- 
rible storm,  and  getting  safe  to  land,  he  defied  God,  Who,  to  punish  him,  sent  a  little  gnat 
(dfl''),  which  crept  up  his  nostrils  mto  his  brain,  and  caused  him  incessant  and  sleepless 
anguish.  At  his  drath  it  was  found  to  be  "as  big  as  a  bird,  and  to  have  a  beak  and  claws  of 
6tecl"  (Hcreshith  Rabba  x.  ;  'lancliuma,  62,  a,  etc.).  It  may  be  imagined  how  patriotic  Jews 
felt  towards  Titus  Flavius  Josephus.  'ihc  name  on  which  he  prided  himself  would  be  to 
them  a  vcri.able  "brand  of  the  Kcasi." 


THE   FALL   OF  JERUSALEM.  561 

Our  hoi}'  and  beautiful  house,  where  our  fathers  praised  Thee, 
is  burned  with  fire,  and  all  our  pleasant  things  are  laid  waste.'" 

It  was  to  this  event,  the  most  awful  in  history — "one  of 
the  most  awful  eras  in  God's  economy  of  grace,  and  the  most 
awful  revolution  in  all  God's  religious  dispensations"^ — that 
we  must  apply  those  prophecies  of  Christ's  coming  in  which 
every  one  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  describe  it  as  near 
at  hand, ^  To  those  prophecies  our  Lord  Himself  fixed  these 
three  most  definite  limitations — the  one,  that  before  that  gen- 
eration passed  away  all  these  things  would  be  fulfilled;^  another, 
that  some  standing  there  should  not  taste  death  till  they  saw 
the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  His  kingdom;"^  the  third,  that  the 
Apostles  should  not  have  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the 
Son  of  Man  be  come.''  It  is  strange  that  these  distinct  limi- 
tations should  not  be  regarded  as  a  decisive  proof  that  the 
Fall  of  Jerusalem  was,  in  the  fullest  sense,  the  Second  Advent 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  which  was  primarily  contemplated  by  the 
earliest  voices  of  prophecy. 

And,  indeed,  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  and  all  the  events 
which  accompanied  and  followed  it  in  the  Roman  world  and 
in  the  Christian  Church,  had  a  significance  which  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  over  estimate.  They  were  the  final  end  of  the 
old  Dispensation.  They  were  the  full  inauguration  of  the 
New  Covenant.  They  were  God's  own  overwhelming  judg- 
ment on  that  form  of  Judaic  Christianity  which  threatened  to 
crush  the  work  of  St.  Paul,  to  lay  on  the  Gentiles  the  yoke  of 
an  abrogated  Mosaism,  to  establish  itself  by  threats  and  ana- 
themas as  the  only  orthodoxy.  Many  of  the  early  Christians 
— and  those  especially  who  lived  at  Jerusalem — were  at  the 
same  time  rigid  Jews.  So  long  as  they  continued  to  walk  in 
the  ordinances  of  their  fathers  as  a  national  and  customary 
duty,  such  observances  were  harmless;  but  it  is  the  inevitable 
tendency  of  this  external  rigorism  to  usurp  in  many  minds  the 
place  of  true  religion.  In  every  Church,  as  we  see  from  most 
of  the  Catholic  epistles,  as  well  as  in  those  of  St.  Paul,  the 
Judaists  asserted  themselves,  and  won  over  the  devoted  ad- 
herence of  the  multitude,  which  is  ever  ripe  for  the  slavery  of 
rigid  dogmas  and  narrow  forms.  It  required  the  whole  force 
of  St.  Paul's  inspired  and  splendid  genius  to  save  Christianity 
from  sinking  into  an   exclusive  sect  of  repellent  Ebionites. 

1  Isa.  Ixiv.  10,  Ti  ;  Moed  Katon,  f.  26,  a.  2  Bp_  Warburton's  Julian^  i.  p.  21. 

3  Acts  ii.  16-20,  40  ;  iii.  19-21 ;  i  Thess.  iv.  13-17  v.  1-16  .  2  Thess.  i.  7-10  ;  i  Cor.  i.  7  ; 
X.  II ;  XV.  21  ;  xvi.  22  ;  Rom.  xiii.  11,  12  ;  Phil.  iii.  20  ;  iv.  5  ;  i  Tim.  iv.  i  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  i  ;  Htb. 
i.  2  ;  X.  25,  37  ;  James  v.  3,  8.  9  ;   i  Pet.  ii.  7  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  12  ;   i  J.  ii.  i8. 

■»  Matt.  xxiv.  34.  ^  Matt.  xvi.  28.  ''  M:Ut.  x.  23. 

36 


562  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

No  event  less  awful  than  the  desolation  of  Judaea,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Ttidaism,  the  annihilation  of  all  possibility  of  observing 
the  precepts  of  Moses,  could  have  opened  the  eyes  of  the 
ludaisers  from  their  dream  of  imagined  infallibility.  Nothing 
but  God's  own  unmistakable  interposition— nothing  but  the 
manifest  coming  of  Christ— could  have  persuaded  Jewish 
Christians  that  the  Law  of  the  Wilderness  was  annulled;  that 
the  idolised  minutiae  of  Levitism  could  no  longer  claim  to  be 
divinely  obligatory;  that  the  Temple,  to  which  so  many  myri- 
ads had  resorted  from  every  region  of  the  world,  as  to  a  com- 
mon refuge,  where  they  found  peace  and  forgiveness  and  holy 
thoughts  and  joyous  hopes,'  had  been  smitten  to  the  ground 
as  though  by  flashes  of  God's  own  avenging  fire;  that  the 
sacrifices,  of  which  Philo.  had  so  recently  said,  "they  are  being 
offered  even  until  now,  and  they  shall  be  offered  for  ever,'" 
had  been  finally,  decisively,  and,  by  the  direct  action  of 
Divine  Providence,  annulled.  It  was  absurd  to  imagine  that 
salvation  could  in  any  way  depend  on  obedience  to  a  law  to 
which  obedience  had  been  rendered  impossible  by  God's  own 
decree.  The  facts,  so  terrible  to  Jewish  imagination,  that 
the  steps  of  the  profane  had  carried  their  bloody  footprints 
into  the  Holiest,  where  only  the  High  Priest  could  enter  once 
a  year;  that  the  unclean  hands  of  Gentiles  had  been  laid  on 
the  golden  altars;  that  the  sacred  rolls  of  the  Torah,  for  which 
any  Jew  would  have  been  ready  to  die,  had  been  carried 
captive,  for  every  profane  eye  to  gaze  upon,  along  the  streets 
of  Edom  and  Babylon — were  but  symbols  of  the  yet  deadlier 
fact  that  henceforth  that  law  could  not  be  kept,  nor  the 
Paschal  lamb  slain,  nor  the  ceremonies  of  even  the  Great 
Day  of  Atonement  any  longer  observed.  Judaism,  a  religion 
of  which  the  Temple  was  the  most  essential  centre,  of  which 
sacrifices  were  the  most  essential  element,  became  a  religion 
without  a  temple  and  without  a  sacrifice.  It  became  no  longer 
possible  for  even  the  most  Pharisaic  of  sacerdotalists  to  talk 
as  though  the  very  universe  depended  on  ceremonies  and 
vestments,  or  on  the  right  burning  of  the  two  kidneys  with 
the  fat. 

Christian  historians  rightly  appreciate  the  significance  of 
the  event.  The  Temple,  says  Orosius,  was  overthrown  and 
done  away  with,  because  it  could  no  longer  serve  any  good 
or  useful  object,  since  now  the  Church  of  God  was  vigorously 


'  Philo,  De  Monnrchia  (Mangey,  ii.  223). 
'•'  Id.  J.r^.  ad  Caium  ^Mangey,  ii.  560}. 


THE    FALL   OF   JERUSALEM.  563 

germinating  throughout  the  world.'  When,  in  a.d.  120, 
yEHa  CapitoHna  was  built  by  Hadrian  on  the  ruins  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  Christians  were  allowed  free  access  to  it,  while  no 
Jew  was  suffered  to  ai)proach  it,  the  Church  of  the  Circum- 
cision was  practically  at  an  end.  "Up  to  that  time,"  says 
Sulpicius  Severus,  "almost  all  Christians  in  Judaea  observed 
the  Law  while  they  worshipped  Christ  as  God;  but  it  was  the 
result  of  God's  ordinance  that  henceforth  the  slavery  of  the 
Law  should  be  taken  away  from  the  freedom  of  the  Church."^ 
The  Church  of  JEVm  CapitoHna  was  no  longer  prevalently 
Judaic;  nay  more,  in  a  mission  to  Hadrian  it  formally  severed 
itself  from  the  Jews.  For  the  first  time,  in  a.d  137,  it  selected 
as  its  bishop  Marcus,  an  uncircumcised  Gentile.^  The  event 
significantly  proved  that  even  in  Judaea  the  future  destinies  of 
the  Christian  Church  were  in  no  further  danger  of  falling  into 
the  hands  of  either  Ebionitesor  Nazarenes."  The  Church  then 
emancipated  itself  finally  and  for  ever  from  the  trammels  of 
the  Synagogue. 

No  one  was  more  deeply  influenced  by  this  event  than  St. 
John.  A  full  quarter  of  a  century  elapsed  between  the  ripe 
manhood  when  he  wrote  the  Apocalypse  and  the  old  age  in 
which  he  wrote  the  Gospel  and  Epistles.  The  colouring  and 
spirit  of- the  Apocalypse  are  clearly  Judaic;  but  we  see  alike 
in  the  advanced  Christology,^  and  in  the  recognition  of  the 
equality  of  the  redeemed  Gentiles,^  and  in  the  absence  of  any 
Temple  in  the  New  Jerusalem,  how  far  St.  John  was  removed 
from  the  heresies  of  those  Jewish  Christians  to  whom  Christ 
was  no  more  than  the  Jewish  Messiah,  and  Christianity  no 
more  than  an  engrafting  of  their  belief  upon  an  otherwise  un- 
changed Pharisaism.  And  yet,  though  the  Gospel  and  Epis- 
tles are  identical  with  the  Apocalypse  in  essential  doctrines — 
though  the  thought  of  Christ  as  the  Victim  Lamb  is  prominent 
in  both — we  see  how  wide  is  the  difference  which  separates 
them;  how  much  calmer  is  the  style,  how  much  deeper  the 
revelation,  contained  in  the  later  writings;  how  the  light  which 
had  dawned  so  brightly  upon  the  Apostles  in  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem  had  shone  more  and   more  unto  the   perfect   day. 


'  "  Ecclesia  Dei  jam  per  totum  orbem  germinante,  hoc  (templum)  tanquam  effoetum  et  va- 
cuum nullique  usui  bono  commodum  arbitrio  Dei  auferendum  fuit"  [Oros.  vii.  9). 

2  .Sulp.  .Sev.  //.  S.  ii.  31. 

•'  Kuseb.  //,  E.  iv.  6  ;  Gratz,  Cesch.  d.  yttden.  iv.  183. 

*  "'J'he  furious  persecutions  and  massacres  of  Christians  by  the  False  Messiah  BarCochba 
(a.d.  132-134),  which  first  thoroughly  opened  the  eyes  of  the  Pagan  world  to  the  difference 
between  Jews  and  Christians,  were  due  alike  to  the  rejection  of  his  claims  by  the  Christians, 
and  their  refusal  to  join  him  in  his  revolt"  (Gratz,  Gesch.  iv.  154,  457). 

^  Rev.  lii.  14  ;  V.  13  ;  xix.  13  ;  xvii.  14  ;  xix.  16,  etc.  «  Rev.  vii.  9. 


564  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

The  Gospel  and  Epistles  contain  the  same  truths  as  the  Apo- 
calypse,' but  the  symbols  are  spiritualised.  Jerusalem,  even 
as  a  symbol,  no  longer  occupies  the  foreground  of  his  thoughts, 
and  positive  Judaic  ordinances  sink  into  insignificance  in  com- 
parison with  the  knowledge  of  God  which  is  eternal  life.  The 
Apocalypse  is  mainly  occupied  with  the  awfulness  of  retribu- 
tion: the  Gospel  and  Epistles  are  dominated  by  the  ideal  of 
love. 

Unless  these  considerations  be  admitted  in  their  fullest 
extent,  it  becomes  impossible  to  maintain  that  writings  so  dif- 
erent,  even  amid  their  partial  similarities,  could  have  come 
from  the  same  hand.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Apocalypse  we 
have  a  material  eschatology,  and  in  the  later  writings  a  spirit- 
ual consummation.  It  is  true  that  the  Apocalypse  is  an  ex- 
pression of  Judaic  Christianity,  and  that  the  Gospel  ^nd  Epis- 
tles are  not.  It  is  true  that  the  points  of  contrast  which  they 
offer  are  more  salient  than  their  resemblances.  It  is  even 
true  that  both  could  never  have  existed  sitnultaneously  in  the 
same  mind.  In  the  Apocalypse  the  s>Tnbols  of  Heaven  itself 
are  mainly  Jewish  and  Levitical,  and  in  the  Gospel  the  evan- 
escence and  annulment  of  such  forms  is  clearly  proclaimed. 
In  the  Apocalypse  the  elements  of  Divine  wrath  are  mainly 
depicted  in  phraseology  borrowed  from  the  old  prophetic  im- 
ages; in  the  later  writings  God  is  depicted  almost  exclusively 
in  the  attributes  of  compassion  and  love.  In  the  Apocalypse 
Christ  is  the  Lion  of  the  Tribe  of  Judah,  the  ruler  who,  with 
a  rod  of  iron,  shall  dash  the  nations  in  pieces  like  a  potter's 
vessel;  in  the  Gospel  He  is  the  Good  Shepherd  who  layeth 
down  His  life  for  the  sheep.  In  the  later  writings  there  are 
no  wars  and  collisions — no  acts  of  awful  vengeance  at  which 
the  saints  look  on  with  exultation;  but  the  world  is  something 
wholly  apart  from  the  kingdom  of  the  saints,  and  that  kingdom 
is  spiritual  and  in  the  heart.  In  the  Apocalypse  the  Anti- 
christ is  a  bloodstained  Roman  Emperor;  in  the  Epistles  there 
are  many  antichrists,  and  they  are  forms  of  speculative  error. 
In  the  Apocalypse  there  are  two  resurrections,  both  physical, 
one  before,  one  after,  the  Millennium;  in  the  Gospel  the  first 
and  chief  resurrection  is  that  from  the  death-  of  sin  to  the  life 
of  righteousness.  In  the  Apocalypse  Heaven  is  wholly  a 
future  splendour;  in  the  Epistles  it  is  already  a  living  and 
present  realisation  of  God's  presence  in  the  heart.  The  Apo- 
calyptist  consoles  the  Christian  sufferer  with  the  hope  of  what 


As  even  IJaur  admits  (y/z/vr  Christian  Centuries,  i.  154). 


THE   FALL  OF  JERUSALEM.  565 

he  shall  be;  the  EvangeHst  with  the  knowledge  of  what  he 
is.' 

How,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  can  the  Evangelist  and  the 
Seer  of  Patmos  be  one  and  the  same  person?" 

They  are  one  and  the  same,  but  divided  from  each  other 
by  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century — by  more  than  twenty  years 
of  divine  education  and  broadening  light.  Many  of  these 
differences  arise  from  the  dealing  with  truths  which  are  indeed 
widely  diverse,  but  which  yet  are  equally  true,  and  which  are 
necessary  to  complement  each  other.  Many  of  them  may  be 
summed  up  and  accounted  for  in  the  single  remark  that  the 
Apocalypse  is  an  Apocalypse,  and  that  it  was  written  amid 
the  throbbing  agonies  of  the  Jewish  war  and  after  the  blood- 
stained horrors  of  the  Neronian.  persecution.  At  that  time 
St.  John  still  belonged  in  training  and  sympathy  to  the 
Church  of  the  Circumcision.  The  Gospel  and  Epistles,  on 
the  other  hand,  were  written  after  long  residence  among 
Gentiles,  when  the  whole  perspective  of  the  Apostle's  thoughts 
had  been  altered  by  the  flood  of  divine  illumination  cast  alike 
upon  the  Old  and  the  New  Covenant  by  the  fulfilment  of 
Christ's  own  prophecies  of  His  coming.  After  the  Fall  of 
Jerusalem  He  had  established  His  kingdom  upon  earth  by 
closing  for  ever  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  amid  all  the  differences  which 
separate  these  writings  there  are  many  subtle  similarities  in 
the  temperament  of  the  writer,  in  his  phraseology,  and  in  his 
theological  standpoint.  In  both  we  have  the  prominent  con- 
ception of  Christ  as  the  Lamb  of  God;^  in  both — and  in  them 
alone — He  is  called  "The  Word."  In  both  we  read  of  the 
"Living  Water."  In  both  we  find  the  recognition  of  the 
priority  in  time  of  the  Jew  and  of  the  admission  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. Both  books  give  prominence  to  the  prophecy  of  Zech- 
ariah  (xii.  10),  "they  shall  look  upon  me  whom  they  have 
pierced,"  and  both  in  their  reference  to  this  verse  diverge  in 
the  same  way  from  the  LXX.  No  careful  student  of  St. 
John's  writings  can  fail  to  see  that  in  many  respects,  and  in 
relation  to  many  doctrines,  an  identity  of  essence  underlies 
the  dissimilarity  of  form."     Not  one  of  the  Johannine  books 


1  See  Reuss,  Hist,  de  la  Theol.  Chret.  ii.  564-571. 

2  Ewald  says  with  his  usual  positiveness,  "  Sic  ergibt  sich  je  genauer  man  sie  nach  alien 
Seiten  hin  untersucht  .  .  .  tlesto  gcwisser  als  von  einem  ganz  andern  Schriftstellcr  und  als 
nicht  vom  Apostel  verfasst"  {jfohanu.  Schriften,  ii.  i). 

^  In  the  Gospel  a/oivd?,  in  the  Apocalypse  apviov.  It  has  been  ingeniously  suggested  that 
dpviov  may  have  been  chosen  as  physiologically  equivalent  in  sound  to  Orjpioy. 

*  For  a  most  satisfactory  proof  of  this,  see  Gebhardt,  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse  (E.  IV., 
Clark,  Edinb.  1878).     Isolated  resemblances  are  Rev.  ii.  2;  John  xvi.  12  ("cannot  bear"]; 


566  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

could  be  spared  from  the  sacred  canon  without  manifest  and 
grievous  loss;  all  of  them  are  rich  in  truths  which  are  neces- 
sary to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation. 


CHAPTER   XXX. 


THE    GROWTH    OF    HERESY 


.  .  .  .  w?  apa  /xe'xpi  Twv  Tore  xpo^^^  7rap9evo<;  KaOapa  Koi  aSi.d<{>9opo<:  etieivev  17  'E/CAcArjcria. 
— Hkgesip!'.  a/>.  Euseb.  //.  /£.  lii.  32. 

"  La  fum^e  qui  obscurcit  le  Soleil  c'est  k  dire  I'heresie." — Bossuet. 

There  were,  as  I  have  said,  three  great  events  which  deeply 
influenced  the  last  and  most  active  period  of  the  life  of  St. 
John — the  Neronian  persecution,  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and 
the  growth  of  Heresy.  The  two  former  events,  which  were 
sudden  and  overwhelming,  woke  their  tremendous  echoes  in 
the  Apocalypse.  The  third  event  was  very  gradual.  We 
find  traces  of  it  in  the  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches,  but  it 
had  a  still  deeper  influence  on  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles, 
which  were  the  inestimable  fruit  of  the  Apostle's  ripest  years. 
According  to  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  they  were  especially 
written  to  combat  heresy,  not  by  the  method  of  direct  and 
vehement  controversy,  but  by  that  noblest  of  all  methods 
which  consists  in  the  irresistible  presentation  of  counter 
truths. 

The  word  "heresy,"  though  it  is  used  in  the  Authorised 
Version  to  translate  the  hairesis  of  the  New  Testament,  has 
not  the  same  meaning.  The  word  was  not  originally  applied 
in  a  bad  sense.  In  Classic  Greek,  for  instance,  it  merely 
meant  a  choice  of  principles,  a  school  of  philosophy  or  of 
thought.'  In  the  New  Testament  it  comes  to  mean  "a  fac- 
tion," and  the  sin  condemned  by  the  word  is  not  the  adoption 
of  erroneous  opinions,  but  the  factiousness  of  party  spirit.'^  It 
was,  however,  perfectly  natural  that  it  should  come  to  mean' 
a  wrong  choice,  a  false  system.  For  Christianity  being  a  divine 
revelation  involves  a  fellowship  and  unity  in  all  essential  veri- 

Rev.  ii.  3 ;  John  iv.  6  ("  faint ")  ;  angels  and  saints  "  in  white  "  [Iv  AeuAcots,  Rev.  iii.  18  ;  John 
XX.  12)  ;  cfTccts  of  "anointing"  (Rc-v.  lii.  18  ;  1  John  ii.  20).  I'.esides  these  there  are  other 
verljal  resemblances,  such  as  •n\pi\v  \6yov,  or  Adyovs  (Rev.  iii.  8,  16;  xxii.  7,  9,  etc.  :  John 
vjii.  51  ;  I  John  ii.  5]  ;  Troieii'  xj/evBos,  or  akiqeeiav  (Rev.  xxii.  15  ;  i  John  i.  6)  ;  ainara  (?  B, 
etc.)  (Rev.  xviu.  24;  John  ii  13);  "  He  that  is  true"  (Rev.  iii.  7  :  xix.  11  ;  John  i.  14  ;  .\i\.6: 
J  John  V.  20)  :  and  the  common  peculiar  usage  of  the  words  aArj^ivos,  ^povnj,  Saiixoviov, 
«^palOTt,  €KKttnelv,  01//1S,  nop(f)vpto<;,  <TKr)vovy,  <T(})dTT€Li>,  etc.  On  the  other  side  see,  among 
others,  Dustcrdieck,  p)p    73-Bo  ;   Ewald,  Johau7i.  Sc/iri/ien,  ii.  52,  53,  61,  62. 

•  Scxt.  Kmpir.  i.  16  ;  Cic.  ad  Fa7>:.  xv.  16,  3. 

'  It  only  o<xurs  in  Acts  v.  17  :  xv.  5  ;  xxiv.  "5.  14  ;  xxvi.  5  ;  xxviii.  22  ;  i  Cor.  .\i.  19  ;  Gal. 
V.  ao ;  2  Pet.  a.  i.  3  See  Ncandcr,  Ch.  Hist.  ii.  4. 


THE   GROWTH    OF   HERESY.  567 

ties,  and  he  who  gives  undue  preponderance  to  his  own  arbi- 
trary conceptions,  he  who  allows  to  subjective  influences  or 
traditional  errors  an  unlimited  sway  over  his  interpretations  of 
truth,  becomes  a  heretic.  And  in  this  sense  many  are  here- 
tics who  most  pride  themselves  on  their  vaunted  catholicity; 
for  the  source  of  all  heresies  is  the  spirit  of  pride,  and  the 
worst  of  all  heresies  is  the  spirit  of  hatred.  The  word  "here- 
tic" has  indeed  been  shamefully  abused.  It  has  again  and 
again  been  applied,  in  a  thoroughly  heretical,  and  worse  than 
heretical  manner,  to  the  insight  and  inspiration  of  the  few 
who  have  discovered  aspects  of  truth  hitherto  unnoticed,  or 
restored  old  truths  by  the  overthrow  of  dominant  perversions. 
A  Church  can  only  prove  its  possession  of  life  by  healthy  de- 
velopment. Morbid  uniformity,  enforced  by  the  tyranny  of 
a  dominant  sect,  is  the  most  certain  indication  of  dissolution 
and  decay.  Since  Christianity  is  manysided,  the  worst  form 
of  heresy  is  the  mechanical  suppression  of  divergence  from 
popular  shibboleths.  Every  great  reformer  in  turn,  every 
discoverer  of  new  forms  or  expressions  of  religious  truth, 
every  slayer  of  old  and  monstrous  errors,  has  been  called  a 
heretic.  When  a  new  truth  could  not  be  refuted,  it  was  easy 
for  the  members  of  a  dominant  party  to  gratify  their  impotent 
hatred  by  burning  him  who  had  uttered  it;  and  though  re- 
ligious partisans  can  no  longer  commit  to  the  flames  those 
who  differ  from  them,  it  is  as  true  in  our  days  as  in  those  of 
Milton,  that — 

"  Men  whose  faith,  learning:,  life,  and  pure  intent 
Would  have  been  held  in  high  esteem  by  Paul, 
Must  now  be  called  and  printed  '  heretic ' 
By  shallow  Edwards  and  Scotch  what  d'j'e  call." 

But  the  real  heretics  were,  in  most  cases,  the  supporters  of 
ecclesiastical  tyranny  and  stereotyped  ignorance,  by  whom 
these  martyrs  were  tortured  and  slain.  He,  and  he  only,  is, 
in  the  strict  and  technical  sense  of  the  word,  a  heretic,  who 
denies  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity,  as  embodied  in 
the  catholic  creeds  which  sufficed  to  express  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church  in  the  first  four  centuries  of  her  history.  But  we 
are  taught  by  daily  experience  that  it  is  possible  to  hold  cath- 
olic truth  in  an  heretical  spirit,  and  heresy  in  a  catholic  spirit. 
By  the  fraud  of  the  devil  many  a  Catholic  has  acted  in  the 
spirit  of  an  infidel;  and,  by  the  grace  of  God,  many  a  heretic 
has  shown  the  virtue  of  a  saint.  As  for  the  existence  of  di- 
versity in  the  midst  of  general  unity,  it  is  not  only  inevitable, 
but,  in  our  present  condition  of  imperfection,  it  is  the   only 


568  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

means  to  secure  a  right  apprehension  of  truth.  Christianity 
may  be  regarded  in  two  aspects — as  a  law  of  life  and  as  a  sys- 
tem of  doctrines.  But  neither  was  the  law  of  life  laid  down 
in  rigid  precepts,  nor  was  the  plan  of  salvation  set  forth  in 
dialectics.  Men  may  be  pure  and  true  Christians,  though 
ihSir  holiness  reveals  itself  in  manifold  varieties  of  form;  they 
may  be  in  faithful  and  conscientious  communion  with  the 
(.Catholic  Church,  though  the  inevitable  differences  of  individ- 
uaHty  lead  to  different  modes  of  apprehending  the  essential 
(iospel.  All  that  is  indispensable  is  that  their  varieties  of 
opinion  should  be  subordinate  to  one  divine  unity,  and  that 
their  mode  of  life  under  all  differences  should  express  some 
aspect  of  the  one  divine  ideal. 

The  jHoral  fibre  of  bitterness  from  which  all  heresies  spring 
is  one  and  the  same.  Whether  they  result  from  the  blind  and 
tyrannous  unanimity  of  corrupt  Churches,  or  the  wild  self- 
assertion  of  opinionated  individuals,  they  owe  their  ultimate 
origin  to  the  pride  and  ambition  of  the  heart.  But  the  intellec- 
tual sources  of  heresy  were  manifold.  It  was  produced  by  the 
contact  of  Christianity  with  Heathenism  and  with  Judaism, 
and  was  especially  derived  from  the  forms  of  philosophy  which 
had  sprung  up  in  the  bosom  of  both  religions. 

The  Gentiles,  as  a  rule,  hated  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  looked 
on  Christianity  as  the  antagonist  of  Judaism,  rather  than  as  its 
dissolution  and  fulfilment.  The  Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  saw 
in  Christianity  only  an  accretion  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  and 
clung  to  the  most  rigid  letter  of  institutions  which  Heathenism 
despised.  Hence,  amid  the  numberless  ramifications  of  here- 
tical sects  which  disturbed  the  Church  of  the  first  century, 
and  which  were  massed  together  under  the  vague  and  often 
inappropriate  name  of  Gnosticism,  some  were  Judaic  and  some 
were  anti- Judaic. 

I.  To  the  Jewish  sects  v\'e  have  already  alluded.  They 
may  be  classed  under  the  two  heads  of  Nazarenes  and  Ebion- 
itcs. 

We  have  been  obliged  again  and  again  to  notice  that  the 
earliest  decades  after  the  Ascension  were  marked  by  a  severe 
struggle  between  the  views  of  Judaising  and  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tians. .St.  James,  the  head  of  the  Judaisers,  had  nevertheless 
adopted  the  views  of  St.  Peter  as  regards  the  freedom  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  while  he  continued  to  be  a  blameless  observer 
of  the  Musaic  Law,  he  gave  full  tolerance  to  all  converts  from 
Paganism  who  did  not  violate  the  Noachian  precepts.  This 
was  the  decision  of  the  Synod  at  Jerusalem.     But  the  party 


TIIK    GROWTPI    OV   HERESY.  5<^'>9 

who  wrote  upon  their  banners  the  name  of  the  Bishop  of  Jer- 
usalem went  much  further.  It  was  one  of  the  main  works  of 
St.  Paul's  life  to  counteract  their  surreptitious  methods  of 
strangling  the  growth  of  true  Christianity  by  insisting  that  all 
(lentiles  must  be  circumcised,  and  must  observe  the  entire 
Levitic  Law.  It  was  in  the  ranks  of  these  Judaists  that  there 
arose  that  imminent  danger  of  apostasy  against  which  they 
had  received  such  solemn  warnings  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, and  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  himself;  it  was  from  their 
ranks  also  that  there  arose  the  two  sects  of  Ebionites  and 
Nazarenes.  " 

It  may  well  be  thought  strange  that  the  most  definite  ex- 
istence of  these  Jewish  Christian  sects  falls  in  the  era  a/fer 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  when  it  might  have  been  deemed  impos- 
sible for  any  one  to  retain  the  opinion  that  God  had  intended 
the  Jewish  Law  to  be  eternally  obligatory.  But  prejudice, 
fortified  by  custom,  is  almost  ineradicable.  Judaism,  when 
robbed  of  all  power  to  observe  its  ritual,  took  refuge  in  its 
Law,  regarded  as  a  separate  and  ideal  entity.  The  disease 
uncured  even  by  the  amputation  of  its  chief  limb,  fastened  it- 
self with  unabated  virulence  on  the  vital  organs.  The  Mosaic 
Law  assumed  in  the  minds  of  Talmudists  the  place  of  God 
Himself,  and  by  the  Law  they  meant  not  morals  but  Rabbin- 
ism,  not  the  Decalogue  but  the  Halacha.  When  Pope  says 
that  in  some  of  the  discussions  of  the  Paradise  Lost — • 

'■  In  quibbles  angel  and  archangel  join. 
And  God  the  Father  turns  a  school  divine," 

he  was  using  the  broadest  satire;  but  his  words  are  applicable 
in  their  most  literal  sense  to  the  teachings  of  the  Rabbis,  who 
arrogantly  usurped  the  exclusive  name  of  Hachakainim^  or 
"the  Wise."  They  represent  God  as  Himself  a  student  of 
the  Torah.  They  disputed  whether  God  Himself  did  not 
w^ear  phylacteries.'  They  represent  Heaven  as  a  great  Rab- 
binic school  in  which  there  are  differences  of  opinion  about 
the  Halacha.  On  one  occasion,  they  assert,  there  was  a  dis- 
pute in  the  celestial  academy  about  the  minutiae  of  a  Levitic 
decision,  and  as  the  Deity  took  one  view  while  the  angels 
took  the  opposite,  it  became  necessary  to  summon  the  soul  of 
Rabbi  Bar  Nachman.  To  him  consequently  the  Angel  of 
Death  is  despatched.  The  Rabbi  is  asked  his  opinion,  and 
gives  it  on  the  side  of  the  Almighty,  who  is  represented — with 


»  Bab.  Beruchoth,  6  a,  j  a  (p.  240,  Schwab). 


570  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

a  piair^//  astonishing  in  its  blasphemous  arrogance — as  highly- 
pleased  with  the  result  of  the  discussion!' 

If  then  the  Jews  could  still  find  space  for  the  practice  and 
idealisation  of  their  Levitism  when  scarcely  one  of  its  direc- 
tions could  be  carried  out — if  almost  without  an  effort  the 
schools  of  Jamnia  and  Tiberias  and  Pumbeditha  could  trans- 
form their  theocracy  into  a  nomocracy,  and  their  theology 
into  a  Levitic  scholasticism,  we  are  hardly  surprised  to  find 
that  the  influence  of  old  traditions  was  sufficiently  strong,  and 
especially  within  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Land,  to  keep  alive 
the  spirit  of  Jewish  Christianity.  Far  on  into  the  fourth,  and 
perhaps  even  down  to  the  fifth,  century  there  continued  to  be 
not  only  "Gem's/s,"  or  Jews  by  race,  and  '' Alasbothcans^''  w^ho 
observed  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  '' Merists^''  who  kept  up  a 
partial  observance  of. the  Jewish  Law,^  but  also  organised 
Christian  sects,  who,  although  they  were  excluded  from  the 
bosom  of  the  orthodox  Church,  had  a  literature  of  their  own 
— the  ancient  counterpart  of  the  modern  "religious  newspaper" 
— and  not  only  maintained  their  ground,  but  even  displayed 
a  wide-spread  and  proselytising  activity. 

a.  The  Nazarenes,  as  a  distinctive  sect,  were  the  Jewish 
Christians  who  did  not  remove  from  Pella  w^hen — if  we  may 
accept  the  ancient  tradition — the  fugitive  Church  of  Jerusa- 
lem returned  to  ^lia  Capitolina,^  which  no  Jew  was  allowed 
to  enter.  But  they  existed  much  earlier,  and  are  to  be  re- 
garded less  as  deliberate  heretics  than  as  imperfect,  narrow- 
minded,  and  unenlightened  Christians.  Epiphanius  calls 
them  "Jews,  and  nothing  else;""*  but  since  they  accepted  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  acknowledged  the  true  divinity  of 
Christ,^  we  may  set  aside  his  uncharitable  description  of  them. 
If,  as  is  probable,  their  views  are  represented  by  the  Testa- 
ment of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs^  we  can  see  that  while  they 
clung  with  needless  tenacity  to  the  obsolete  and  the  abro- 
gated, this  was  only  the  result  of  limited  insight  and  national 
custom.  Their  reversion  to  the  religion  of  the  Patriarchs,  as 
representing  a  purer  and  more  absolute  religion  than  the  Le- 
vitic system,  is  distinctly  Pauline,  and  they  honestly  accepted 
the  faith  of  Christ."     It  has  been  inferred   from  passages  of 


'  Babha  Mctzia,  86,  a.  2  Uegesippus,  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  22. 

'  Neandcr,  Ch.  Hist.  i.  475.  «  Epiplian.  Haer.  xxx.  9. 

'  They  are  said,  however,  to  have  denied  His  Pra;-existence  (Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  27),  but  we 
may  class  them  with  the  r'ov  '\y\aovv  a.-nQhix6\i.ivoK  of  Origen  (c.  Cels.  v.  61).  The  reason  why 
the  early  allusions  to  them  arc  contradictory,  is  because  the  opinions  of  these  "  subdichotomies 
of  pcity  schisms"  were  doubtless  ill-defiued. 

•  Sec  Neandcr,  Ch.  Hist.  ii.  19-21  ;  Mansel,  Gnostic  Heresies,  pp.  123-128  :  Lightfoot, 
Calatiatis,  pp.  293-301  ;  Ritschl,  Altkath.  Kirche,  pp.  152,  seq. 


THE   GROWTH   OF   HERESY.  571 

this  book  that  they  held  the  view  that  Jesus  only  became  a 
Divine  Being  at  His  baptism,  but  the  expressions  used  seem 
to  be  at  least  capable  of  a  more  innocent  and  orthodox  inter- 
pretation/ 

b.  The  Ebionites,  on  the  other  hand,  were  daringly  her- 
etical. They  rejected  altogether  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,^  and 
pursued  his  memory  for  some  generations  with  covert  but  vir- 
ulent calumny.  They  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  circum- 
cision and  the  universal  validity  of  the  Law.  They  regarded 
Christ  as  a  mere  man,  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  justified 
only  by  his  legal  righteousness.^  To  these  views  some  of  the 
Ebionites — who  died  away  as  an  obscure  sect  on  the  shores  of 
the  Dead  Sea — superadded  ascetic  notions  and  practices  which 
they  seem  to  have  borrowed  from  the  Essenes.*  Hence,,  in 
all  probability,  was  derived  their  name  of  Ebionites,  from  the 
Hebrew  word  Ebion^  "poor."  The  error  that  there  was  such 
a  person  as  Ebion  was  due  to  Epiphanius,  who  calls  him  '  'a 
successor  of  Cerinthus."^  The  assertion  that  they  were  called 
"paupers"  because  they  thought  "meanly  and  poorly"  of 
Christ,  was  merely  a  way  of  turning  their  name  into  a  re- 
proach." The  Elcesaites,  or  followers  of  Elxai,  who  were 
Ebionites  with  Essene  and  Gnostic  admixtures,  were  never 
more  than  a  small  and  uninfluential  sect. 

By  the  time  when  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel  and  Epistles, 
the  question  of  circumcision,  and  all  the  most  distinctively 
Judaic  controversies,  had  ceased  to  be  discussed.  They  had, 
at  any  rate,  lost  all  significance  for  the  Church  in  general. 
The  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites  had  at  best  but  a  local  influ- 
ence. Even  the  Nicolaitans  are  charged,  not  with  heresy,  but 
with  immoral  practices,  and  with  teaching  indifference  to 
idolatry  by  the  ostentatious  and  indiscriminate  eating  of  meats 
offered  to  idols.''  This  tendency  to  Antinomianism  was  the 
natural  result  and  the  appropriate  Nemesis  of  that  extrava- 
gant legal  rigorism  to  which  the  Judaists  strove  to  subjugate 
the  Church. 

2.  The  two  heresiarchs  who  came  into  most  dangerous 

1  Test.  XIL  Patr.,  Levi,  18 ;  Simeon.  7.  2  Qrig.  c.  Cels.  v.  adyin. 

5  Hence  Marius  Mercator  calls  them  Homuncionitae  [Refut.  anath.  Nestor.  12),  and  Lac- 
tzntius  AfithroJiiuMi  {Instt.  iv.  ad  Jin.). 

*  Tert.  De  Cam.  Christie  14 ;  De  Praescr.  33,  48  :  Philastr.  Haer.  37 ;  Aug.  de 
Haer.  16.  6  Dial,  c,  Luci/er.  8  ;  Ps.  Tert.  A^pettd.  de  Praescr.  48. 

c  Euseb.  H.  R.\\\.  27. 

^  On  the  Nicolaitans  see  notes  on  Rev.  ii.  6,  14,  15.  An  account  of  them,  taken  from  Iren. 
Haer.  i.  27  ;  iii.  11  ;  Euseb.  H.E.  iii.  29  ;  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxv.  i  ;  Clem.  Alex.  .Strom,  ii.  20; 
iii.  4,  will  be  found  in  Ittigius,  De  Hieresiarchis,  1.  9,  §  4  ;  Mosheim,  De  rebus  Christ,  ii, 
69.  They,  like  other  sects,  are  charged  with  cloaking  licentious  habits  under  specious  names 
(Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  4  ;    Constt.  Apost.  vi.  8  ;   Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Trail,  and  ad  Philad.). 


572  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

prominence  in  the  Apostolic  age  are  Simon  Magus  and  Cer- 
iNTHUS.  If  any  credit  can  be  given  to  the  vague  and  much- 
confused  traditions  as  to  their  tenets,  it  is  clear  that  those 
tenets,  at  least  in  their  germ,  were  strongly  and  directly  con- 
demned in  several  of  the  Epistles. 

a.  Of  Simon  Magus,  "the  hero  of  the  romance  of  heres}-, " 
little  is  known  v/hich  is  not  legendary.  In  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles'  we  find  him  in  the  position  of  a  successful  impostor 
in  Samaria,  where  the  whole  population,  amazed  by  his  sorce- 
ries, accepted  his  assertion  that  he  was  "the  Power  of  God 
which  is  called  Great."  He  was  baptised  by  Philip,  but 
proved  the  hollowness  of  his  religion  by  being  guilty  of  the 
first  act  of  the  sin  which  from  him  is  called  "simony;" — he 
endeavoured  "to  purchase  the  gift  of  God  with  money."  Ac- 
cording to  the  high  authority  of  Justin  Martyr — who  was  him- 
self a  Samaritan — Simon  was  a  native  of  Gitton  in  Samaria.^ 
Josephus,  in  calling  him  a  Cypriote,  (if  he  be  speaking  of  the 
same  person)  may  have  confused  Gitton  with  Citium  in  Cy- 
prus.^ Felix  made  use  of  his  iniquitous  agency  in  inveigling 
from  her  husband  the  Herodian  princess  Drusilla."  He  is  the 
subject  of  many  wild  and  monstrous  legends.  He  is  said  to 
have  been  the  pupil  of  a  certain  Dositheus,  and  to  have  fallen 
in  love  with  his  concubine  Luna  (Selene  or  Helena).  When 
Dositheus  wished  to  beat  him  he  found  that  the  stick  passed 
through  his  body  as  through  smoke. ^  The  "sorceries"  which 
he  practised  are  said  to  have  consisted  in  passing  through 
mountains  and  through  fire,  making  bread  of  stones,  breathing 
flames,  and  turning  himself  into  various  shapes.  With  the 
money  that  he  offered  to  St.  Peter  he  purchased  as  his  slave 
and  partner  a  woman  of  Tyre  named  Helena."  Hence  his 
followers  are  called  by  Celsus  Heleniani.  Iren^us  says^  "that 
he  carried  this  woman  about  with  him,  calling  her/his  first 
Conception  (Ennoia)  and  the  mother  of  all  things.  Descend- 
ing to  the  lower  world,  she  had  produced  the  angels  and 
powers  by  which  the  lower  world  was  made,  and  had  been  by 
them  imprisoned  and  degraded.  She  had  been  Helen  of 
Troy,  and  in  her  fallen  condition  was  "the  lost  sheep," 
whom  he  had  recovered.  He  himself,  though  not  a  man,  be- 
came  a  man  to  set  her  free.     His  adherents,,  he  declared,  had 

'  Acts.  viii.  .  2  Just.  Mart.  AJ>ol-  i-  26. 

»  Jos.  Antt.  xvm.  5  ;  xx.  7,  §  2.     Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  13. 

•  .Sec  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  341. 

•  Conat't.  A  Post.  vi.  8  ;'  Clem.  Recogn.  ii.  31. 

•  Clem.  Recog7i.  ii.  31  ;  Niceph.  H.  E.  ii.  27. 

„  '  J""*^"-  /f"'^-  '•  23  :  >'•  9-  and  comp.  Hippol.  Re/.  Ilaer.  vi.  10  ;  Tert.  De  Anima,  34  ; 
Lpiphan.  tiaer.  xxv.  4  ;  Theodorcl,  Haer.  Fab.  i.  i. 


THE    GROWTH    OF    HERESY.  573 

no  need  to  fear  the  lower  angels  and  powers  which  made  the 
world,  but  they  might  live  as  they  pleased,  and  would  be  saved 
by  resting  their  hopes  on  him  and  on  her.  Later  on  he  is  said 
to  have  gone  to  Rome,  and  to  have  met  with  his  end  in  an  at- 
tempt to  fly,  which  was  defeated  by  the  prayers  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul.' 

It  is  clear  that  Simon  Magus  was  not  only  a  heresiarch, 
but  also  a  false  Christ  or  antichrist.  PI  is  notions  were  partly 
Jewish  and  Alexandrian.  Philo  had  spoken  of  "Powers"  of 
God,  of  which  the  greatest  was  the  Logos.  According  to 
Jerome,  Simon  used  to  say,  "I  am  the  word  of  God,  I  am 
beautiful,  I  am  the  Paraclete,  I  am  the  Almighty,  I  am  the 
all  things  of  God;"'  and  Irenjeus  says  that  he  spoke  of  hav- 
ing appeared  to  the  Jews  as  the  Son,  to  the  Samaritans  as  the 
Father,  and  to  the  Gentiles  as  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hippolytus 
gives  an  account  of  his  opinions  from  a  book  called  21ie  Great 
Amwuncement  (Apophasis  Megale)^  which,  though  it  can  hardly 
be  his,  may  be  supposed  to  express  the  views  of  his  followers. 
The  views  there  stated  resemble  those  of  the  later  Gnostics 
and  Kabbalists.  The  "Indefinite  Power"  is  described  as  Fire 
and  Silence.  This  Fire  has  two  natures,  the  source  respec- 
tively of  the  Intelligible  and  the  Sensible  Universe.  The 
world  was  generated  by  three  pairs  of  roots  or  principles — 
namely,  Mind  and  Consciousness,  Voice  and  Name,  Reason- 
ing and  Thought;  and  the  Power  in  these  roots  is  manifested 
as  "he  who  stands,"  or  who  shall  stand — by  which  he  seems  to 
mean  himself  as  the  perfect  man.  It  is  clear  that  in  these 
roots  we  see  the  germ  of  the  Gnostic  Aeons  and  the  Kabbal- 
istic  Sephiroth — the  object  of  which,  like  that  of  every  Gnos- 
tic system  of  emanations,  was  to  separate  God  as  far  as  pos- 
sible from  man  and  from  matter.  Th^  inmost  conception  of 
Gnosticism  is  contradicted — its  very  basis  is  overthrown — by 
the  words  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  "The  Word  became  flesh." 

b.  The  name  of  Cerinthus  is  less  mixed  up  with  fantastic 
legends;  but  the  accounts  given  of  his  views  are  full  of  un- 
certainty and  contradiction,  and  seem  to  show  that  he  was 
one  of  those  who  "wavered  like  a  wave  of  the  sea,"  and  was 
tossed  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine.     Thus  it  is  that  he 

1  Hippolytus  says  that  he  was  buried— promising  to  rise  again  {Ref.  Haer.  vi.  26).  As  to 
this  legend — which  (as  we  have  seen)  may  have  sprung  from  the  attempt  of  an  actor  taking 
the  part  of  Icarus  (Suet.  Ner.  12) — Iren^eus,  Tertullian,  and  Eusebius  are  silent.  It  is  found 
in  Arnobius.  adv.  Gent.  ii.  12,  and  with  many  var^'ing  details  in  the  A/>ostoiic  Constitutions 
(vi.  9)  ;  Ambrose  [Hcxaein.  iv.  8)  ;  Sulp.  Severus  (ii.  41)  ;  Eg<Siippus  [De  Excid.  Hierosol. 
iii.  2),  etc.,  as  well  as  in  Cedrenus,  Nicephorus,  Glycas,  etc.  I  have  already  alluded  to  the 
mistake  which  led  Justui  Martyr  to  suppose  that  he  was  wor.shipped  at  Rome  {Apol.  11,  69, 
91 ;  Tert.  Apol.  13).  "^  Jer.  in  Matt.  xxiv.  5. 


574  Ili^'    KARLV    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITV. 

mixed  up  Millenarianism  and  other  Judaic  elements  with  fan- 
cies which  were  afterwards  developed  by  the  most  anti-Judaic 
Gnostics.'  Thus,  too,  he  has  been  credited  with  the  authorship 
of  the  Apocalypse,  though,  in  accordance  with  early  Church 
tradition,  he  was  the  very  teacher  against  whom  the  later 
writings  of  St.  John  were  specially  aimed. "^ 

Of  his  personal  life  scarcely  anything  is  known.  It  is  con- 
jectured that  he  must  have  been  a  Jew  by  birth,  but  he  had 
evidently  been  trained  in  Egypt, ^  and  he  certainly  taught  in 
Asia.  The  name  J/erinthus,  which  is  sometimes  given  him, 
is  probably  a  nickname,  since  the  word  means  "a  cord."  But 
even  his  date  is  uncertain.  He  is  usually  believed  to  have 
taught  in  the  old  age  of  St.  John;  but  TertuUian  places  him 
after  Karpokrates,  who  did  not  flourish  till  the  reign  of  Ha- 
drian, A.D.  117. 

His  errors,  as  noticed  by  Irenaeus,*  are  as  follows: — 

(i).  He  declared  that  the  world  was  made  by  a  Virtue  or 
Power  far  inferior  to  the  Essential  Divinity. 

(2).  That  the  human- Jesus  was  not  born  of  a  virgin,  but 
was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  that  he  only  differed 
from  men  in  supreme  goodness. 

(3).  That  the  Divine  Christ  only  descended  upon  Jesus  at 
His  baptism;*  and — 

(4).  That,  when  Jesus  suffered,  the  Divine  Christ  flev/ 
back  into  His  Pleroma,  being  Himself  incapable  of  suffering." 

Besides  these  errors,  he  is  said  to  have  regarded  Jesus  as 
a  teacher  only,  not  as  a  redeemer;  to  have  rejected  the  Epis- 
tles of  St.  Paul;  and  to  have  sanctioned  the  practice  of  being 
baptised  for  the  dead. 

Even  from  these  glimpses  we  can  see  that  he  did  not  ex- 
actly deny  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  The  first  who  is  said  to 
have  done  this  was  Theodotus  of  Byzantium.'  But  Cerinthus 
was  evidently  actuated  by  the  Gnostic  desire  to  remove  as  far 
as  possible  the  notion  of  any  contact,  much  more  any  inter- 
communion, between  God  and  Matter.     Now,  the  Christian 


>  The  assertion  of  Philastrius  {Haer.  36)  and  Epiphanius  {Haer,  xxviii.  2)  that  he  was 


,  .         ,.  .  ,  — -  merely  passed  through  tlie  Virgk 

parnking  of  her  nature. 

«  Kpiphanius  and  'Pheodoret  repeat  this  testimony  of  Irenxus,  and  say  that  Cerinthus  at- 
iributed  the  niiraclcs  of  Jesus  to  Christ,  whom  he  represented  as  identical  with  the  Holy  Spirit. 
uV'  u*\'"  ■      l"u*'-'^°"'y'''^'=*=^''''^'y^'h«-'st.'' or  "the  Christ  below"  (6  koLtu)  Xokxtos), 
while  the  I  )ivinc  (  hrist  was  "  the  Christ  above  "  (6  avoi  Xpiaros) 
'  Kuscl'.  //.  K.  V.  -.-8. 


THE   GROWTH    OF    HERESY.  575 

doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  cut  at  the  root  of  the  Alexandrian 
and  Gnostic  fancies  that  Matter  was  evil,  and  that  God  was 
so  infinitely  removed  from  man  that  he  could  hold  no  immedi- 
ate communion  with  him.  It  was  the  fatal  system  of  Dualism 
which  led  to  so  many  heresies.  It  was  the  cause  of  Ebionism, . 
which  denied  Christ's  Divinity  altogether;  of  Docetism,  which 
maintained  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  purely  phantasmal  and 
unreal;'  and  it  probably  lay  at  the  base  of  Nestorianism, 
which  lost  sight  of  the  indivisible  union  of  the  human  and  the 
Divine  in  the  one  God-man.  Cerinthus,  like  other  Gnos- 
tics of  Egyptian  training,  denied  the  hypostatic  and  eternal 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ.  He  taught  that  Christ 
alone  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  until  His  baptism,  and  at 
His  crucifixion,  Jesus  was  an  ordinary  man.  In  the  one  preg- 
nant expression  of  St.  John,  he  "loosed"  or  "disintegrated 
Jesus.  ""^ 

Views  essentially  similar  to  these  are  found  in  all  the 
Gnostic  systems.'  They  all  sprang  from  speculations  about 
the  origin  of  evil,  and  about  the  method  of  bridging  over  the 
chasm  between  absolute  and  finite  being.  Since  they  identi- 
fied evil  with  matter,  they  led  at  once  to  a  Manichean  dual- 
ism; and  it  was  only  by  inventing  elaborate  series  of  herma- 
phrodite pairs  of  aeons  or  emanations  that  they  could  imagine 
any  communication  of  God's  will  to  man.''  They  were  all 
influenced  by  the  Platonised  Judaism  of  Philo^  and  the  Alex- 
andrians, as  well  as  by  Persian  and  other  Oriental  elements  of 
thought."  But  the  deadliness  of  their  system  revealed  itself 
in  many  and  in  opposite   forms.      It  exalted  an  imaginary 

'  Clemens  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  iii.  13)  ascribes  the  invention  of  Docetism  to  Julius  Cas- 
sianus,  a.d.  173,  but  it  is  clear  that  the  germs  of  it  existed  long  before,  and  are  even  found,  as 
Hippolytus  says  [Ref.'Haer.  vi.  14),  in  Simon  Magus.  It  was  taught  in  the  Apocryphal 
(iospel  of  Peter  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  23),  which  was  perhaps  forged  by  Leucius,  a  disciple  of 
Marcion,  about  a.d.  140,     The  Docetae  were  also  called  Phantasiasts  and  Opinarians. 

'  See  iiifra^  p.  638. 

3  The  name  Gnostic — "one  who  knows" — was  first  adopted  by  the  Naassenes  or  Ophites, 
"alleging  that  they  alone  knew  the  depths"  (Hippol.  Hner.  v.  6).  Irenseus  {ap.  Euseb.  H. 
E.  iv.  7)  calls  Karpokrates  "the  father  of  the  heresy  which  is  called  that  of  the  Gnostics" 
(comp.  id.  Haer.  1.  25,  6 ;  see  l.ipsius,  Gnosticisvtus,  p.  48).  The  original  sources  for  the 
history'  of  Gnosticism  are  to  be  found  in  Irena^us  i^adv.  Haercscs),  TertuUian  {adv.  Marci- 
onfin,  De  Fraescr.  Haereticorwn,  Jtnd  Scorpiace],  Kpiphanius  {adv.  Haereses'),  and  pas- 
sages of  Clemens  Alex,  and  Origen,  and  Hippolytus  Philosophumena.  F'or  modem  treatises 
see  Beau'^obre  [Hist,  du  Manicheisvie^,  Matter  {Hist,  du  Gnosticisnie),  Burton  {Inquiry  ii/ to 
Heresies  0/ the  Apostolic  Age),  Mansel  {Gnostic  Heresies),  ^r\6  Baur  [Die  Christ.  Gnosis). 
See  too  Milman,  History  0/  Christianity,  ii.  68  ;  Robertson,  Ch.  Hist.  i.  31  ;  Neander,  Ch. 
Hist.  ii.  82  ;  Gieseler,  Ch.  Hist.  i.  114  ;  Burton,  Bantpt.  Lect.  iv.,  etc.  Later  treatises  are 
Ad.  Hamack,  Quellen  d.  Gesch.  d.  Gnost.  (1873)  ;  Lipsius,  Quellett  d,  alt.  Ketzer^esch. 
1875. 

*  So  Plato,  in  the  Tvnaeus,  said  that  it  was  the  function  of  the  subordinate  gods  "to  weave 
the  mortal  to  the  immortal." 

*  "  Haereticorum  patriarchae  philosophi "  (Tert.  ad?',  Herinog.  8) ;  "  Plato  omnium  haere- 
ticorum  condimentarius"  {De  Anim.  23). 

*  Some  of  the  Gnostics  referred  to  Zoro.\ster.     Porphyr.  ]'it.  Piotiit.  10. 


576  THE    KARLV    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

knowledge  above  a  pure  and  unsophisticated  faith.  It  mis- 
took a  terminology  for  a  creed.  It  confused  a  manipulation  of 
words  with  a  removal  of  difficulties.  It  puffed  up  its  follow- 
ers with  an  inflated  sense  that  they  were  an* intellectual  aristo- 
cracy, possessed  of  an  esoteric  teaching  which  elevated  them 
far  above  their  simple  brethren.  The  doctrine  of  the  inher- 
ent evil  of  matter,  and  the  confusion  of  "the  body"  with  "the 
flesh,"  drove  the  Gnostics  either  into  an  extravagant  ascet- 
ism,  which  destroyed  the  body  without  controlling  it,  or  into 
Antinomian  license,  which  destroyed  it  in  the  opposite  way 
by  shameful  self-indulgence.  This  they  excused  either  on 
the  plea  that  to  the  true  Gnostic  the  spiritual  was  everything, 
and  that  anything  which  his  body  did  was  of  no  moment, 
since  it  did  not  affect  his  true  self;  or  by  arguing  that  the 
moral  law  was  only  the  work  of  the  evil  or  inferior  Dem.iurge.' 
In  both  extremes  they  confused  the  true  nature  of  sin,  turned 
religion  and  morality  into  curious  questions,  placed  salvation 
in  systems  of  metaphysics,  and  by  vain  speculation  and  verbal 
analyses  lost  sight  of  the  practical  answer  which  Christianity 
had  given  to  all  the  deepest  problems  of  human  life. 

These  errors  existed  in  their  germs  from  a  very  early 
period.  We  often  hear  the  voice  of  St.  Paul  raised  in  w-arn- 
ing  respecting  them,  especially  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Colos- 
sians  and  Ephesians,  and  in  the  later  Epistles.  Against  their 
Antinomian  developments  we  have  the  strong  denunciations 
of  St.  Jude.  But  St.  John  lived  at  a  time  when  they  had  ac- 
quired a  more  definite  consistency.  He  saw^  and  he  declared 
that  all  of  them  began  or  ended  with  a  denial  of  Christ,  or 
with  errors  as  to  His  nature.  He  discountenanced  alike  their 
exaggerated  spirituality  and  the  carnality  into  which  it  passed. 
He  erected  a  bulwark  against  them  all  in  those  inspired  words 
which  contain  the  essence  of  all  the  truths  which  are  most 
precious  to  Christianity,  and  which  form  the  Prologues  of  his 
Gospel  and  First  Epistle.  He  regards  them  all  as  forms  of 
Antichrist.  He  who  denies  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son 
of  God — in  other  words,  who  asserts,  as  Cerinthus  did,  that 
the  historical  Man  Jesus  was  not  in  the  fullest  sense  Divine — 
is  an  Antichrist  in  a  far  different  sense  than  Nero  was,  and  yet 
in  a  true  sense.  St.  John  tells  us  this  in  his  usual  way,  both 
positively  and  negatively.'  He  tells  us  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  and  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  the  Divine  Eternal  Being 


Clemens  Alex.  {Strom,  m.  ^).  529)  points  out  that  thcv  taught  extravagant  asceticism 
{vittfnovov  «y(epoT«tai/).  or  moral  mdiflerentism  (a6ia<^dpws  fijv). 
*  1  John  11.  18,  22  ;  iv.  3,  15  ;  v.  i,  10. 


LATER    WRITINGS    OF   ST.    JOHN.  57/ 

tabernacled  in  human  flesh.'  He  says,  in  every  possible  form 
of  words,  that  Jesus  is  Christ;  that  Christ  is  Jesus;  that  Jesus 
is  Divine — that  Jesus  is  not  a  separate  being  from  the  Son  of 
God,  but  indistinguishable  from  Him.  The  Gnostics  made 
the  Divine  "come  and  go  to  Jesus  like  a  bird  through  the 
air,"  but  St.  John  testifies  throughout  Gospel  and  Epistles,  as 
he  had  also  done,  though  with  less  absolute  distinctness,  in 
the  Apocalypse,  that  the  Divine  became  Human,  and  dwelt  in 
our  Humanity  indivisibly.^  The  Eternal  Son  of  God  not  only 
filled  the  whole  person  of  Jesus,  which  is  Himself,  but  also 
filled  all  believers — who  are  born  of  God,  not  of  "the  will  of 
the  flesh."  He  fills  all  life  and  death  and  resurrection  with 
Divine  life  and  glory.  Yet  while  thus  protesting  alike  against 
Psilanthropia — the  Ebionite  doctrine  that  Christ  was  a  mere 
man — and  against  Docetism,  and  against  the  Dualistic  theo- 
ries of  incipient  Manichees,  and  against  all  severing  of  the  Per- 
son of  Jesus  into  a  Man  who  is  not  God,  or  a  God  who  refuses 
to  be  a  man — he  at  the  same  time  makes  it  clear  that  he  does 
not  identify  religion  with  orthodoxy,  but  places  true  religion 
in  love  to  God  shown  by  love  to  man.  The  self-satisfaction 
of  a  supercilious  orthodoxy  which  might  at  any  time  soar 
into  Pharisaic  asceticism,  or  sink  into  reckless  immorality,  is 
confronted  w4th  the  assurance — Oh  that  in  all  ages  the  Chris- 
tian Church  had  better  understood  it,  and  taken  it  more  deeply 
to  heart! — that  "he  who  saith  I  know  God,  and  keepeth  not 
His  commandments,"  were  he  ten-times-over  orthodox  in  his 
asserted  knowledge,  is  yet  "a  liar,  and  the  truth  is  not  in 
him;"^  and  that  "he  who  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God;  for 
God  is  love."^ 


CHAPTER    XXXI. 

LATER    W-RITINGS    OF    ST.    JOHN. 

"Sumtis  pennis  aquilae  et  ad  altiora  festinans  de  Verbo  Dei  disputat." — Jer.  ad  Matt  , 
Proem. 

"Transcendit  nubes,  transcendit  virtutes  coeiorum,  transcendit  angelos,  el  Verbuin  in 
j>rinciJ>io  repperit." — Ambros.  Prol.  in  Lur. 

Apart  from  its  own  beauty  and  importance,  the  Epistle  of 
St.  John  derives  a  special  interest  from  the  fact  that  it  is  the 
latest  utterance  of  Apostolic  inspiration.     It  is  addressed  to 


I  John  iy.  2,  3  ;  2  John  7.  2  ggg  Keim,  Jesu  von  Nazara,  Introd.  IF.  C,. 

I  John  ii.  4.  *  I  John  iv.  8. 

37 


578  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Churches  which  by  the  close  of  the  first  century  had  advanced 
to  a  point  of  development  far  beyond  that  contemplated  by 
St.  Paul  in  his  earlier  Epistles.  Many  of  the  old  questions 
which  had  raged  between  Judaisers  and  Paulinists  had  van- 
ished into  the  back-ground..  The  Gospel  had  spread  far  and 
wide.  It  had  become  self-evident  that  nothing  could  be  more 
futile  than  to  confine  those  waters  of  the  River  of  God  in  the 
narrow  channels  of  Jewish  particularism.  The  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem had  illuminated  as  with  a  lightning  flash  the  darkness 
of  obstinacy  and  prejudice.  It  had  proved  the  inadequacy  of 
the  Pharisaic  ideal  of  "righteousness,"  and  the  ignorance  of 
the  system  which  proclaimed  itself  to  be  the  only  orthodoxy. 
The  liberty  for  which  St.  Paul  had  battled  all  his  life  long 
against  storms  of  hatred  and  of  persecution,  had  now  been 
finally  achieved.  St.  John  himself  had  advanced  to  a  stand- 
point of  knowledge  far  beyond  that  of  the  days  when  he  had 
lived  among  the  Elders  of  the  Church  which  was  dominated 
by  the  views  and  example  of  St.  James.  He  had  learnt  the 
full  meaning  of  those  words  of  the  Lord  to  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  that  the  day  should  come  in  which  men  should  wor- 
ship the  Father  neither  on  Gerizim  or  in  Jerusalem  but  every- 
where, and  acceptably,  if  they  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 
On  the  other  hand,  new  and  dangerous  errors  had  arisen. 
Christianity  had  come  into  contact  with  Greek  philosophy  and 
Eastern  speculation.  Men  were  no  longer  interested  in  such 
questions  as  w^iether  they  need  be  circumcised;  or  to  what 
extent  their  consciences  need  be  troubled  by  distinctions  be- 
tween clean  or  unclean  meats;  or  whether  they  were  to  place 
the  authority  of  James  or  Kephas  above  that  of  Paul;  or  what 
was  the  real  position  to  be  assigned  to  the  gift  of  tongues;  or 
whether  the  dead  in  Christ  were  to  lose  any  of  the  advantages 
which  would  be  granted  at  His  second  return  to  the  living. 
All  such  questions  had  received  their  solution  in  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul.  Christians  as  a  body  wej^e  by  this  time  fully  ac- 
quainted with  his  arguments,  and  acquiesced  in  them  all  the 
more  unhesitatingly  because  they  had  been  stamped  with  irre- 
fragable sanction  by  the  course  of  History.  All  men  could 
see  the  rejection  of  the  once  chosen  people.  Far  different 
were  the  questions  which  now  agitated  the  minds  of  Christian 
thinkers.  They  were  questions  of  a  more  abstract  character, 
relating  above  all  to  the  nature  of  Christ.  Was  Pie,  as  the 
Ebionites  maintained,  a  mere  man?  Was  He,  as  Cerinthus 
argued,  a  twofold  personality,  the  Eternal  Christ  and  the  sin- 
less Jesus,  united  only  between  the  Baptism  and  the   Cruci- 


LATER    \VRrriN(;S    OF   ST.    JOHN.  579 

fixion?'  Or,  was  He,  again,  as  the  intellectual  precursors  of 
the  Docetae  were  beginning  to  suggest,  a  man  in  semblance 
only — who  had  but  lived  in  the  phantasm  of  an  earthly  life? 
Nay  more,  men  were  beginning  to  speculate  about  the  nature 
of  God  Himself.  Could  God  be  regarded  as  the  author  of 
evil?  Must  it  not  be  supposed,  as  the  Manichees  subsequently 
argued,  that  there  were  two  Gods — one  the  supreme  and  illi- 
mitable Deity  belonging  to  regions  infinitely  above  '  'the 
smoke  and  stir  of  this  dim  spot  which  men  call  earth,"  the 
other  a  limited  and  imperfect  Demiurge?  Again,  what  was 
the  relation  between  these  questions  and  the  duties  of  daily 
life?  Christians  were  free  from  the  Law;  that  was  a  truth 
which  St.  Paul  had  proved.  But  was  there  any  fundamental 
distinction  between  the  authority  on  which  rested  the  ceremo- 
nial and  the  moral  law?  Might  they  not  regard  themselves  as 
free  from  the  rules  of  morality,  as  well  as  from  the  routine 
of  Levitism?  Was  not  faith  enough?  If  men  believed  rightly 
on  God  and  on  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  would  He  greatly  care 
as  to  how  they  lived?  So  argued  the  Antinomians,  and  many 
of  them  were  prepared  to  carry  their  arguments  from  theory 
into  practice.  Such,  then,  were  the  errors  which  it  became 
the  special  mission  c5f  St.  John  to  counteract. 

But  he  does  not  counteract  them  controversially.  The 
method  of  Pauline  dialectics  was  entirely  unsuited  to  his  habit 
of  mind.  That  method  in  its  due  time  and  place  was  absolu- 
tely necessary.  It  met  the  doubts  of  men  in  the  intellectual 
region  in  which  they  had  originated.  It  broke  down  their  ob- 
jections with  the  same  weapons  by  which  they  had  been  main- 
tained. But  when  that  work  was  done  there  was  another  way 
to  bring  home  the  truth  to  the  conviction  of  the  universal 
Church.  It  was  by  witness,  by  spiritual  appeal,  by  the  state- 
ment of  personal  experience,  by  the  lofty  language  of  inspired 
authority.  Hence  the  method  which  St.  John  adopts  is  not 
polemical  but  irenical.  He  overthrows  error  by  the  irresis- 
tible presentation  of  counter  truths.  In  the  Gospel,  as  Keim 
says,  he  counteracted  heresy  thetically,  in  the  Epistles  anti- 
thetically; in  other  words,  in  the  Gospel  he  lays  down  positive 
truths,  in  the  Epistles  he  states  those  truths  in  sharp  contrast 
with  the  opposing  errors.  To  those  who  moved  in  the  atmos- 
phere of  controversy  "difficulties"  loomed  large  and  porten- 
tous all  around  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.     St.  John  dealt 


1  Iren.  Haer.  xi.  7.     "  Qui  autem  Jesum  separant  a  Christo  et  impassibilem  perseverasse 
Christum,  passuni  vero  Jesuin  dicujit  ..." 


5S0  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

with  those  difficulties  from  a  region  so  elevated  and  serene 
that  to  all  who  reached  his  point  of  view  they  shrank  into  in- 
significance. At  the  heights  whence  he  gazed  men  might 
learn  to  see  the  grandeur  of  the  ocean,  and  to  think  little  of 
the  billows,  and  nothing  of  the  ripples  upon  its  surface. 
Hence  it  has  been  a  true  Christian  instinct  which  has  assigned 
to  St.  John  the  symbol  of  "the  eagle,"  in  the  four-fold  cherub 
of  the"  Gospel-chariot.  The  eagle  which  sails  in  the  azure 
deep  of  air  "does  not  worry  itself  how  to- cross  the  streams." 
Dante,  in  the  Paradiso,  showed  no  little  insight  when  he  called 
him  "Christ's  own  eagle,"  and  when  he  describes  the  outlines 
of  his  form  as  lost  in  the  dazzling  light  by  which  he  is  en- 
circled. "The  central  characteristic  of  his  nature  is  intensity 
— intensity  of  thought,  word,  insight,  life.  He  regards  every- 
thing on  its  divine  side.  For  him  the  eternal  is  already 
....  He  sees  the  past  and  the  future  gathered  up  in  the 
manifestation  of  the  Son  of  God.  This  was  the  one  fact  in 
which  the  hope  of  the  world  lay.  Of  this  he  had  himself  been 
assured  by  the  evidence  of  sense  and  thought.  This  he  was 
constrained  to  proclaim:  'We  have  seen  and  do  testify.'  He 
had  no  laboured  process  to  go  through;  he  saw.  He  had  no 
constructive  proof  to  develop;  he  bore  witness.  His  source 
of  knowledge  was  direct,  and  his  mode  of  bringing  conviction 
was  to  affirm."*  His  whole  style  and  tone  of  thought  is  that 
of  "the  bosom  disciple."" 

Thus  then  the  one  consummate  truth  which  St.  John  had 
to  offer  to  the  gathering  doubts  and  perplexities  of  all  un- 
faithful hearts  was  the  Incarnation  of  the  Divine.  This  is 
the  central  object  of  all  faith.  This  is  the  one  counteraction 
of  all  unbelief. 

And  by  the  manner  in  which  he  set  forth  this  truth — by 
this  presentation  to  the  world  of  "the  spiritual  Gospel"^ — he 
at  once  obeyed  the  divine  impulse  of  inspiration  which  came 
to  him,  and  met  the  natural  wishes  which  the  Church  had 
earnestly  expressed.  The  tradition  which  records  that  he  wao 
urged  to  write  his  Gospel  by  the  Elders  and  Bishops  of  the 
Church,*  is  one  which  has  every  mark  of  probability.  The 
generation  .of  the  Apostles  was  rapidly  passing  away.     St. 

1  Wcstcott,  .9/.  John,  p.  XXXV. 
.  J  .'  ^'^  ''l'*^  (°  6jrt(7T>j(*io?;  was  given  to  St.  John  as  e.irly  as  the  second  century.     It  is  found 
|o  «rr"t  TO  cT^flo?  toO  Kvpiou  dvaTreawf  j  in  Polycrates,  15p.  of  Ephesus  (see  Routh,  Rel.  Sacr. 
>•  '5.  37.  370)  and  Ircn.  c.  llaer.  iii.  i,  i.  3  Clem.  Alex.  up.  Euseb.  //.  E.  vi.  14. 

*  I*  Impelled  by  his  friends"  (Clem.  Alex.  I.e.).  The  legend  is,  that  on  being  requested 
to  write  the  Gospel,  he  asked  the  Ephcsian  elders  to  join  hun  in  fasting,  and  then  suddenly 
exclaimed,  as  if  inspired,  ''In  the  beginning  was  the  Word"  (Jer.  de  Virr.  Illustr.  .:9). 
Ircnxus  only  says  that  he  was  asked  to  write  the  Gospel  {Haer.  lii.  i). 


LATER   WRITINGS   OF   ST.    JOHN..  58 1 

John  had  now  lono^  'exceeded  the  ordinary  hmits  of  human 
age.  The  day  would  very  soon  come  when  not  a  single  human 
being  could  say  of  the  Lord  "I  saw."  But  he  could  still  say 
this;  he  had  not  only  seen  and  heard  and  gazed  upon  and 
handled  the  Word  of  Life,  but  had  even  been  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple of  the  Son  of  Man.  The  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  had 
been  recorded  by  the  three  Synoptists.  What  the  world  now 
needed  was  some  guide  into  the  full  and  unspeakable  signifi- 
cance of  those  facts.  Who  was  so  fit  to  give  it  as  St.  John? 
nay,  who  besides  him  was  even  capable  of  giving  it  with  au- 
thority? He  had  hitherto  written  nothing  but  the  Apocalypse. 
The  Apocalypse  had  indeed  depicted  the  glory  of  the  Eternal 
Christ,  but  it  was  a  book  of  peculiar  character;  it  was  full  of 
symbols;  it  \yas  difficult  of  interpretation;  it  was  based  on  the 
imagery  and  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament;  it  was  full  of 
storm  and  stress.  It  was  the  Book  of  Battle,  the  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  the  Lord;  it  portrayed  the  struggles  of  the  Church 
with  the  hostile  forces  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  world;  and 
its  celestial  visions  were  interposed  between  scenes  of  judg- 
ment, 

"  As  when  some  mighty  painter  dips 
His  pencil  in  the  hues  of  earthquake  and  ecUpse." 

There  were,  moreover,  many  Christian  doctrines  on  which 
the  Apocalypse  did  not  touch,  and,  above  all,  it  had  been 
written  before  that  divine  event  which  had  evidently  been  the 
beginning  of  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of  Christianity.  In 
the  final  removal  of  the  candlestick  of  Judaism,  the  Christian 
Church  had  rightly  seen  the  primary  fulfilment  of  those  pro- 
phecies which  had  spoken  of  the  Immediate  Coming  of  the 
Lord. 

To  all  the  living  members  of  the  Church,  that  stupendous 
event  had  set  the  Seal  of  God  to  the  revelation  of  the  New 
Covenant.  It  was  the  obvious  close  of  the  epoch  which  had 
begun  at  Sinai.  It  was  the  extinction  of  the  Aaronic  in  order 
to  establish  the  Melchizedek  Priesthood.  It  had  rendered  the 
system  of  Jewish  sacrifices  impossible,  in  order  to  show  that 
the  one  true  sacrifice  had  now  once  for  all  been  offered.  It 
had  been  the  burning  desecration  of  the  sin-stained  Temple 
in  order  that  men  might  see  in  the  Church  of  (rod  the  new 
and  spiritual  Jerusalem  which  had  no  need  of  any  temple 
therein,  because  the  body  of  every  true  believer  was  the  spirit- 
ual temple  of  the  one  God.  But  to  St.  John  especially  that 
event  had  come  as  with  a  burst  of  light.  It  had  been,  per- 
haps, the  greatest  step  since  the  death  of  Clirist   in  that  edu- 


582  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

cation  for  the  sake  of  which  his  life  had  been  so  long  pre- 
served. The  oral  teaching  of  the  Apostle  must  have  been 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  gradual  revelation  which  had  so 
long  been  going  on  within  him  had  now  reached  its  fulness. 
The  light  which  had  begun  to  pulse  in  the  Eastern  sky  over 
the  banks  of  Jordan  had  shone  more  and  more  towards  the 
perfect  day.  Was  this  teaching  to  be  lost  to  the  world  for 
ever?  Was  it  only  to  be  entrusted  to  the  shifting  imperfec- 
tions of  oral  tradition?  Was  it  to  be  but  half-apprehended  by 
the  simplicity,  or  misrepresented  by  the  limitations,  of  such 
men  as  Papias  and  Irenaeus?  How  little  had  the  Synoptists 
detailed  respecting  the  Judsean  ministry  of  which  St.  John  so 
often  spoke!  They  had  not  recorded  the  earliest  call  of  the 
Disciples,  nor  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  nor  the  washing  of  the 
Apostles'  feet.  They  had  reported  some  of  the  public  ser- 
mons of  Jesus,  but  they  had  not  preserved  any  memorial  of 
such  private  discourses  as  that  to  Nicodemus  and  the  woman 
of  Samaria,  or  as  those  divine  farewells  delivered  at  the  Last 
Supper.  Nor,  again,  had  th'ey  spoken  of  Christ's  prae-exist- 
ence;  nor  had  they  used  that  title  of  "the  Word,"  which  was 
now  so  frequently  on  the  lips  of  St.  John,  and  to  which  he 
gave  such  pregnant  significance;  nor  did  they  furnish  a  final 
insight  into  the  two  natures  in  the  one  Person  of  the  Son  of 
Man. 

It  was  true  indeed,  as  the  Elders  and  Bishops  who  urged 
their  request  upon  St.  John  would  at  once  have  admitted, 
that  as  regards  the  divinity  and  atoning  work  of  Christ,  the 
knowledge  of  the  Church  had  been  greatly  widened  and  sys- 
tematised  by  the  teachings  of  St.  Paul.  He  had  brought  into 
clear  light  the  truth  that  Jesus  was  not  only  the  Messiah  of 
the  Jews,  the  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,  but  that  He  was  the 
incarnate  Son  of  God,  the  eternal  Saviour  of  the  World;  that 
only  by  faith  in  Him  could  we  be  justified;  that  the  true  life 
of  the  believer  is  merged  in  absolute  union  with  Him;  and 
that  because  He  has  risen  we  also  shall  rise. 

Yet  none  could  have  listened  to  St.  John  in  his  latter  years 
without  feeling  that,  while  he  accepted  the  doctrines  of  St. 
Paul,  he  had  himself,  in  the  course  of  a  longer  life,  enjoyed 
more  of  that  teaching  which  comes  to  us  from  the  Spirit  of 
God  in  the  lessons  of  History.  Whilst  he  gave  no  new  com- 
mandment, and  had  no  new  revelation  to  announce,  he  yet 
stamped  with  the  impress  of  finality  the  great  truths  which  St. 
Paul  had  taught.  There  is  not  a  single  doctrine  in  the  writ- 
ings of  St.  John  which  may  not  be  found   implicitly  and  even 


LATER   WRITINGS   OF   ST.    JOHN.  583 

explicitly  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul;  and  yet — to  give  but 
two  instances  out  of  many — the  Church  would  have  been  in- 
definitely the  loser  had  she  not  received  the  inheritance  of 
sayings  so  supreme,  so  clear,  and  so  final  as  these  of  St. 
John,— 

' '  The  Father  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world ^ ' ' 
and 

"  We  are  in  Him  that  is  true,  even  in  His  Son  Jesus  Christ. 
This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life. ' ' ' 

No  one,  again,  had  yet  uttered  such  clear  words  respect- 
ing the  Divinity  and  Humanity  indissolubly  yet  distinctly 
united  in  the  Person  of  Christ  as  those  which  are  contained 
in  the  Prologue  to  the  Gospel  and  the  opening  address  of  the 
Epistle,  and  which  are  concentrated  in  the  four  words,  "77/^ 
Word  became  Flesh.''  No  one  had  so  briefly  summarised  the 
Atoning  and  Mediatorial  work  of  Christ,  as,  '' He  is  the  Pro- 
pitiation'^ for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only  but  also  for  the 
Whole  World!'' 

Indeed,  as  they  listened  to  the  white-haired  Apostle,  men 
must  have  felt  that  there  was  something  in  his  manner  of  ex- 
position which  tended  to  remove  all  difficulties,  to  solve  all  ap- 
parent antinomies.  Take,  for  instance,  the  apparent  contra- 
diction between  the  terms  used  by  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  as 
to  Righteousness  by  Faith  and  Righteousness  by  Works. 
Would  it  not  cease  to  be  a  difficulty — was  not  the  controversy 
lifted  to  a  higher  region — when  they  heard  such  words  as, 
*  *  He  that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous,  even  as  He  is  righteous, ' ' 
in  connexion  with  "  Whoso  keepeth  His  Word,  in  them  verily 
is  the  love  of  God  perfected,  and  every  one  that  doeth  righteous- 
ness is  born  of  Him;"  and,  *' Behold  what  and  how  great  love 
God  hath  given  us  that  we  should  be  called  the  children  of  God"? 
Or,  again,  if  men  felt  the  difficulties  which  rise  from  the  for- 
ensic and  sacrificial  aspects  of  the  Atonement,  how  would 
they  feel  that  the  forgiveness  in  the  Court,  and  the  cleansing 
in  the  Temple,  was  simplified  when  it  was  mingled  with  the 
thoughts  of  the  perfection  of  our  sonship  in  union  with  the 
Son  of  God,  and  indicated  in  terms  sosublimely  final  as, 

* '//  lue  say  that  we  have  no  sin  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 
truth  is  not  in  us.  But  if  7ve  confess  our  sins,-  God  is  faithful 
and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  un- 
righteousness"? 

The  expressions  of  the  New  Testament  which  describe  the 

'  I  John  V.  20,  2  I  John  ii.  a  :  (Aaa/xd?,  a  unique  expression  of  St.  John. 


584  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

privileges  of  the  Christian  estate  fall  into  three  classes,  of 
which  one  revolves  around  the  word  Righteousness;  another 
round  the  word  Sonship;  a  third  around  metaphors  expressive 
of  Sacrifice.  Now  let  the  reader  study  the  First  Epistle  of 
St.  [ohn,  from  ii.  29  to  iii.  5,  and  he  will  find  the  order  there 
— Righteousness  (ii.  29),  Sonship  (iii,  i),  Sanctification  (iii.  2 
— 5);  but  the  three  are  one.  The  terms  of  the  Court,  the 
Household,  and  the  Temple  confirm  and  illustrate  each  other. 
Jesus  Christ — the  Righteous,  the  Son  of  the  Father,  the 
Holy  One — presides,  in  the  glory  of  His  holiness,  over  all  and 
over  each.* 


CHAPTER   XXXII. 


THE    STAMP    OF    FINALITY    ON    THE    WRITINGS    OF    ST.   JOHN. 

"  Aquila  ipse  est  Johannes,  sublimium  prsedicator,  et  lucis  internse  atque  aeternse  fixis 
oculis  contemplator." — Aug.  in  Joh..  Tract.  36. 

It  is  in  ways  like  these — by  the  use  of  expressions  at  once 
larger  and  simpler,  more  comprehensive  and  more  easily  in- 
telligible; expressions  which  transcend  controversy  because 
they  are  the  synthesis  of  the  complementary  truths  which 
controversy  forces  into  antithesis — that  St,  John,  the  last 
writer  of  the  New  Testament,  in  traversing  the  whole, field  of 
Christian  theology,  sets  the  seal  of  perfection  on  all  former 
doctrine.  This  is  exactly  what  we  should  have  desired  to  find 
in  the  last  treatises  of  inspired  revelation.  And  one  remark- 
able peculiarity  of  his  method  is  that  he  indicates  the  deepest 
truths  even  respecting  those  points  of  doctrine  on  which  he 
does  not  specifically  dwell.  Thus,  he  does  not  dwell  on  the 
explanation  (if  the  term  may  be  allowed)  of  Christ's  Atone- 
ment; he  does  not  offer  any  theory  as  to  the  reason  for  the 
necessity  or  efficacy  of  Christ's  death;  yet  he  involves  all  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul  and  of  Apollos  in  the  words,  that  "Christ 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  and  for  the  whole  world,"  and 
that  "the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin." 
He  does  not  use  the  words  "mediator  between  God  and 
man,"  but  he  sets  forth,  with  a  clearness  never  before  attained, 
that  our  mediator  is  God  and  Man.  He  does  not  contrast 
God's  love  with  His  justice,  but  he  shows  that  love  and  pro- 
pitiation were  united  in  the  antecedent  will  of  God.  He  does 
not  work  out  the  details  of  Christology,  but  he  so  pervades 

'  I  owe  this  ilioiiglu  to  Dr.  Pope's  excellent  Introduction  to  liis  translation  of  Haiipt's  First 
Kpistle  o/St.  John,  p.  xxxi. 


FINALITY    ON   THE    WRITINGS    OF   ST.    JOHN.        585 

his  Gospel  and  Epistle  with  the  thought  that  "the  Word  was 
God,"  and  that  "without  Flim  was  not  anything  made  that 
was  made,"^  as  to  produce  a  Ghristological  impression,  sub- 
limer  even  than  that  which  we  derive  from  the  Epistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  the  Colossians.  He  does  not  dwell  on  the  sac- 
raments, and  yet  in  his  few  words  on  the  witness  of  the  Water, 
and  on  the  Bread  of  Life,  he  brings  out  their  deepest  signifi- 
cance. He  does  not  develop  the  reasons  for  the  rejection  of 
the  Chosen  People,  after  the  grandeur  of  their  past  mission; 
but  he  illustrates  both  no  less  fully  than  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  the  Hebrews,  when,  in  his  Gospel,  he  contrasts, 
step  by  step,  the  unbelief  of-the  Jews  with  the  faith  of  the  dis- 
ciples, and  yet  records  the  expression  of  Christ's  eulogy  "an 
Israelite  indeed.."  He  records  Christ's  saying  to  the  woman 
of  Samaria,  that  salvation — the  salvation  of  which  all  the  Pro- 
phets had  spoken — was  from  the  Jews;'^  and,  in  his  own  words, 
he  writes  of  Christ's  coming  to  the  Jews  as  a  coming  to  "His 
own  people  and  His  own  house.  "^  Once  more,  St.  John  no- 
where enters  into  any  formal  statements  about  the  Triune 
God;  yet  in  whose  writings  do  we  see  more  fully  than  in.  his 
the  illustration  of  St.  Augustine's  saying,  '' Ubi amo7' ibi  Triii- 
itas,"  when  we  hear  him  say  that  "God  is  Love,"  and  that 
"God  is  Light;"  and  that  in  Christ  was  Light,  and  that  Light 
was  the  Life  of  Men;  and  that  all  Christians  have  an  Unction 
from  the  Holy  One,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of 
Christ? 

But  there  are  three  points  in  the  last  writings  of  St.  John 
which  more  especially  stamp  his  teaching  with  the  mark  of 
finality. 

I.  The  first  of  these  is  the  new  and  marvellous  light  which 
he  throws  on  the  Idea  of  Eternity. 

The  use  of  the  word  aionios^  and  of  its  Hebrew  equivalent, 
olam,  throughout  the  whole  of  Scripture  ought  to  have  been 
sufficient  to  prove  to  every  thoughtful  and  unbiassed  student 
that  it  altogether  transcends  the  thoroughly  vulgar  and  un- 
meaning conception  of  "endless."  Nothing,  perhaps,  tends 
to  prove  more  clearly  the  difficulty  of  eradicating  an  error  that 
has  once  taken  deep  and  agelong  root  in  the  minds  of  "theo- 
logians" than  the  fact  that  it  should  still  be  necessary  to  prove 
that  the  word  eternal,  far  from  being  a  mere  equivalent  for 
"everlasting,"  jieve?-  mt3.\-\s  "everlasting"  at  all,  except  by  re- 


>  "I'liese  words,  taken  in  their  widest  significance,  constitute  the  signature  of  the  Johan- 
naean  writings"  (Haupt).  '■'John  iv.  22,  17  <TWT7jpi'a  en  jiav  'louSai'wi/  i<niv. 

3  John  i.  II,  oi  iSiot  ,  .   .  tu  i5ta.     Comp.  John  xix.  27. 


586  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

flexion  from  the  substantives  to  which  it  is  joined;  that  it  is 
only  joined  to  those  substantives  because  it  connotes  ideas 
which  transcend  all  time;  that  to  make  it  mean  nothing  but 
time  endlessly  prolonged  is  to  degrade  it  by  filling  it  with  a 
merely  relative  conception  which  it  is  meant  to  supersede,  and 
by  emptying  it  of  all  the  highest  conceptions  which  it  properly 
includes.  I  am  well  aware  that  this  truth  will,  for  some  time,  be 
repeated  in  vain.  But,  once  more,  I  repeat  that  if  by  aionios  St. 
John  had  meant  "endless"  when  he  speaks  of  ''aeonian  life," 
there  was  the  perfectly  commonplace  and  unamoiguous  word 
akatalutos  used  by  Apollos  in  Heb.  v.  6,  and  there  were  at  least 
five  or  six  other  adjectives  or  expressions  which  were  ready 
to  his  hand.  But  the  Life  which  had  been  manifested,  which 
he  had  seen,  to  which  he  was  bearing  witness,  which  stood  in 
relation  to  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  to  us,'  was  some- 
thing infinitely  higher  than  a  mere  "endless"  life.  The  life 
— if  mere  living  be  life — of  the  most  doomed  and  apostate  of 
the  human  race — the  life  even  of  the  devil  and  his  angels — is 
an  "endless"  living,  if  we  hold  that  man  and  evil  spirits  are 
immortal.  But  by  qualifying  the  divine  life  by  the  epithet 
"eternal"  {aionios)  St.  John  meant,  not  an  endless  life  (though 
it  is  also  endless),  but  a  spiritual  life,  the  life  which  is  in  God, 
and  which  was  manifested  by  Christ  to  us.  By  calling  it  aion- 
ios he  meant  to  imply,  not — which  was  a  very  small  and  acci- 
dental part  of  it — its  unbroken  continuance,  but  its  ethical 
quality.  The  life  is  "endless,"  not  because  it  is  the  infinite 
extension  of  time,  but  because  it  is  the  absolute  antithesis  of 
time;  and  aionios  expresses  its  internal  quality,  not  as  some- 
thing which  can  be  measured  by  infinite  tickings  of  the  clocks, 
but  as  something  incommensurable  by  all  clocks,  were  they 
to  tick  for  ever.  The  horologe  of  earth,  as  Bengel  profoundly 
exi)resses  it,  is  no  measure  for  the  aeonologe  of  heaven.  The 
meaning  of  "eternal"  ought  long  ago  to  have  been  vindicated 
from  its  popular  degradation.  St.  John  is  the  last  of  all  Scrip- 
ture writers  who  uses  it;  he  alone  of  all  Scripture  writers  de- 
fines it;  and  he  makes  it  consist  not  in  idle  duration,  but  in 
progressive  knowledge.  In  defining  it,  he  says  that  it  is  the 
Kift  of  Christ,  "and  that  the  eternal  life  is  this,  that  they  may 
know  Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Him  whom  Thou  sendest, 
even  Jesus  Christ."' 

For  thus  we  see  at  once,  that,  in  the  mind  of  St.  John 

•  John  i.  2. 

-  John  xvii.  23.     T,iterally  "that  they  may  be  learning  to  know"— not  so  niucli  the  pos- 
session of  a  completed  life  as  of  a  life  which  is  advancing  to  completion. 


FINALITY    ON    THE    WRHTNGS    OF   ST.    JOHN.         587 

eternal  life  is  an  antithesis  not  to  the  temporal,  but  to  the 
Seen;'  that  it  is  not  a  life  which  shall  be,  but  one  that,  for  the 
believer,  now  is;  that  "every  one  who  beholdeth  the  Son  has 
— not  shall  have,  but  has — eternal  life;'"''  that  "he  who  hath 
the  Son,  hath  the  life"  here  and  now;  and  that  one  of  the  ob- 
jects why  St.  John  wrote  at  all  was  that  they  might  know  that 
they  had  it.^  He  who  will  lay  aside  bigotry  and  factiousness 
and  newspaper  theology,  and  will  sincerely  meditate  on  these 
passages,  will  see  how  unfortunate  is  the  antique  and  vulgar 
error  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word.  If  a  man  be  incapable 
of  seeing  this,  or  unwilling  to  admit  it,  for  such  a  man  reason- 
ing is  vain."* 

2.  Another  mark  of  finality  is  St.  John's  teaching  about 
the  Logos,  or  Word.  In  the  Epistle  he  enters  into  no  details 
or  description  respecting  the  nature  and  Person  of  the  Logos; 
and  yet — in  accordance  with  that  peculiarity  of  his  method 
which  we  have  already  noticed — the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  as 
the  source  of  all  life,  is  the  fundamental  matter  and  pith  of 
the  Epistle.^  This,  we  may  remark  in  passing,  is  one  of  the 
indications  that  the  Epistle  was  a  didactic  accompaniment  of 
the  Gospel.  But  in  the  use  of  the  Logos  as  a  distinct  name 
of  Christ  St.  John  stands  alone.  Other  Apostles — St.  Paul, 
St.  James,  and,  above  all,  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Pie- 
brews — seem  to  hover  on  the  verge  of  it;  but  they  do  not 
actually  use,  much  less  do  they  insist  on  it;  and  when  they 
approach  it  they  are  thinking  always  of  the  Divinity  more  than 
of  the  Humanity — of  the  glorified.  Eternal  Christ,  and  not 
immediately  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  Other  writers,  again, 
both  Hebrew  and  Hellenistic,  had  employed  terms  which  bore 
some  resemblance  to  it,  but  not  one  had  infused  into  it  the 
significance  which  makes  it  a  concentration  of  the  Johannine 
Gospel.  Philo  had  repeatedly  dwelt  on  the  term,  and  sur- 
rounded it  with  Divine  attributes;  but  Philo  knew  not  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  in  Philo  the  Logos  is  surrounded  with  asso- 
ciations derived  from  the  Platonic  and  Stoic  philosophies. 
The  Targums  had  used  the  words  Meymra  (x-i^stt)  diwd  Debih-a 
(NmaT),  which  could  indeed  only  mean  "the  Word";  but  in 
these  the  use  had  been  intended  simply  to  avoid  the  rude  an- 


1  John  iv.  14,  36  ;  vi.  27  ;  xii.  25.  2  ]\{_  ^6  ;  v.  -^4  ;  vi.  40,  47,  54. 

3  I  John  V.  13,  14. 

4  I  should  not  use  language  so  positive  if  I  had  not  furnished  the  most  decisive  and  over- 
whelming proof  of  my  position  in  Mercy  and  Jud^nent,  pp.  ^91-405.  Of  that  proof  another 
generation  will  be  able  to  judge.  From  the  false  and  fleetmg  criticisms  of  to-day  I  appeal 
once  more  to  a  diviner  standard.  I  exclaim  again,  with  Pascal,  '^  Ad  tuum,  Domine  ^fsu, 
tribunal  aJ>J>ello.^''  *  See  Huupt,  p.  4. 


588  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

thropomorphism  of  earl)^  Hebrew  literature,  and  to  make  God 
seem  more  distant  rather  than  more  near.  AHke  the  Alexan- 
drians and  the  Targumists  would  have  read  with  a  shock  of 
astonishment  and  disapproval  that  utterance  which  St.  John 
puts  in  the  very  forefront  of  his  Gospel,  as  containing  its  in- 
most essence,  and  as  solving  all  the  problems  of  the  world, 
that  "the  Logos  became  yf<f^//."  It  was  a  truth  far  beyond 
anything  of  which  they  had  dreamed,  that  the  Word — who 
was  in  the  beginning,  who  was  with  God,  who  was  God,  by 
whom  all  things  were  made,  in  whom  was  life,  which  life  was 
the  light  of  man — that  this  Word  was  in  the  world,  came  to 
His  own  people  and  His  own  home,  and  was  by  most  of  them 
rejected — that  this  Word  became  flesh,  and  tabernacled 
among  us,  and  we  beheld  His  glory,  a  glory  as  of  the  only- 
begotten  from  the  Father — full  of  grace  and  truth.  To  make 
such  a  use  of  the  word  Logos  was  to  slay  those  conceptions 
which  lay  at  the  heart  of  the  Alexandrian  theosophy  with  an 
arrow  winged  by  a  feather  from  its  own  breast.  It  was  to  adopt 
the  most  distinctive  watchword  of  the  Philonists  in  order  to 
overthrow  their  most  cherished  conceptions. 

3.  I  see  yet  another  mark  of  Finality  in  what  St  John  says 
of  God,  and  especially  in  the  First  Epistle.  It  is  not  indeed 
pc^ssible  to  make  the  whole  analysis  of  the  Epistle  turn  on  the 
three  great  utterances — definitions  we  dare  not  call  them,  yet 
approximations  to  some  description  of  the  Essence  of  Him 
who  is  Divine — that  God  is  Righteous,  that  God  is  Light, 
and,  above  all,  that  God  is  Love.  But  I  regard  it  as  a  most 
blessed  fact,  that  words  so  full  of  depth  and  blessedness'should 
occur  in  what  is  practically,  and  perhaps  literally,  the  latest 
utterance  of  Holy  Writ. 

"God  is  Righteous,"  and  therefore  He  hates  all  un- 
righteousness in  others,  and  there  can  be  no  unrighteousness 
in  Him.  Unrighteousness,  masking  itself  as  righteousness — 
unrighteousness  putting  on  as  its  disguise  the  flaming  armour 
of  religious  zeal — unrighteousness  in  the  form  now  of  persecu- 
tion, now  of  violence,  now  of  scholastic  orthodoxy,  now  of  de- 
preciation, unfairness,  and  slander — has  been  again  and  again 
represented  as  doing  Him  service.  But  because  He  is  right- 
eous He  hates  it.  Whether  it  take  the  form  of  Inquisitorial 
cruelty  or  of  anonymous  falsehood,  all  violence  is  hateful  to 
Him.  Lying  for  God  is  to  God  an  abomination,  even  when 
the  lie  claims  to  be  a  shibboleth  of  His  most  elect.  Want  of 
candour,  want  of  gentleness,  want  of  forbearance,  are  unhal- 
lowed incense  which  does  but  pollute  His  altar.    Notions  that 


FINALITY   ON  THE   WRITINGS   OF   ST.    JOHN.        589 

represent  Him  as  a  God  of  arbitrary  caprice,  treating  men  as 
though  they  were  nothing  but  dead  clay,  to  be  dashed  about 
and  shattered  at  His  will — notions  which  represent  His  justice 
as  something  alien  from  ours,  and  those  things  as  good  in 
Him  which  would  be  evil  in  us — notions  which  imagine  that 
in  His  cause  we  may  do  evil  that  good  may  come — those  idols 
of  the  School  arc  shattered  on  the  rock  of  the  truth  that  God 
is  Righteous. 

"God  is  Light. "^  Notions  that  represent  Him  as  taking 
pleasure  in  man's  blind  and  narrow  dogmatism,  self-satisfied 
security,  and  bitter  exclusiveness — as  making  His  chosen  and 
His  favoured  ones  not  of  earth's  best  and  noblest,  but  of 
the  wrangling  religionists  who  claim  each  for  his  own  party 
the  monopoly  of  His  revelation — as  though  one  could  love  the 
dwarfed  thistles  and  the  jagged  bents  better  than  the  cedars 
of  Lebanon — these  idols  of  the  fanatic,  idols  of  the  sectarian, 
idols  of  the  Pharisee,  are  shattered  by  the  ringing  hammer- 
stroke  of  the  truth  that  God  is  Light. 

God  is  Love.  The  words  do  not  occur  in  the  Gospel,  and 
yet  they  are  the  epitome  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  epitome  of 
the  whole  Scriptures,  and  the  epitome  of  the  history  of  man- 
kind; and  as  such  they  are  a  standing  protest  against  all  that 
is  worst  and  darkest  in  many  of  the  world's  schemes  of  infer- 
ential theology.  God  is  Love — not  merely  loving,  but  Love 
itself.  The  notions,  therefore,  which  would  represent  Him 
as  living  a  life  turned  towards  self,  or  folded  within  self, 
caring  only  for  His  own  glory,  caring  nothing  for  the  endless 
agonies  of  the  creatures  He  has  made,  predestining  them  by 
millions  to  unutterable  torments  by  horrible  decrees,  regard- 
ing even  the  sins  of  children  as  infinite,  "drawing  the  sword 
on  Galvary  to  smite  down  His  only, Son" — these  idols  of  the 
Zealot,  idols  of  the  Calvinist,  idols  of  those  who  think  that 
they  by  their  wrath  can  work  the  righteousness  of  God,  and 
that  they  "can  deal  damnation  round  the  land  on  each  they 
deem  their  foe," — these  idols  of  the  Inquisitor,  idols  of  the 
persecutor,  idols  of  the  intolerant  ignorance  of  human  infalli- 
bility, idols  of  the  sectarian  newspaper  and  the  religious  par- 
tisan, are  dashed  to  pieces  by  the  sweeping  and  illimitable 
force  of  the  truth  that  God  is  Love. 

And,  therefore,  those  three  final  utterances  of  Revelation 


1  Rabbi  Simon  Ben  Jehosadek  asked  R.  Samuel  Ben  Nachman  "from  what  the  light  was 
created?"'  He  answered,  in  a  whisper  of  awe,  "God  wrapped  Himself  in  light  as  in  a  gar- 
ment, and  caused  its  bright  glory  to  shine  from  one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other"  (Bereshith 
Rabba,  ch.  iii.). 


590  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

will  become  more  and  more,  we  trust,  the  protection,  the  eman- 
cipation, the  precious  heritage  of  all  mankind;  they  will  be 
the  barrier  against  wicked  persecutions,  against  unjust  calum- 
nies, against  savage  attacks  of  sectarian  hatred.  They  are 
as  a  charter  of  Humanity  against  the  misrepresentations  of 
religion  by  misguided  Infidelity — ^against  its  no  less  perilous 
perversion  by  the  encroachments  and  usurpations  of  religious 
hatred  and  religious  pride. 

4.  We  may  see  a  last  mark  of  finality  in  the  simplification 
of  the  ultimate  essential  elements  of  Christian  truth  which  we 
find  in  St.  John.  In  reading  St.  Paul  we  are  at  once  struck 
with  the  richness  and  variety  of  the  terms  and  phrases  which 
he  has  introduced  into  the  statement  of  Christian  dogma.  St. 
John,  on  the  other  hand,  moves  in  the  sphere  of  a  few  ulti- 
mate verities.  St.  Paul  is  like  a  painter  w4io  works  out  his 
results  by  the  use  of  many  colours,  and  with  an  infinitude  of 
touches;  St.  John  produces  the  effect  w^hich  he  desires  by  a 
few  pure  colours  and  a  few  sweeping,  but  consummate  strokes. 
St.  Paul  is  discursive,  St.  John  intuitive.  St.  Paul  begins  with 
man,  St.  John  with  God.  In  other  words,  St.  Paul  passes 
from  anthropology  to  theology,  and  St.  John  moves  chiefly  in 
the  purely  theologic  sphere.  St.  Paul  reasons  most  respect- 
ing the  righteousness  of  God  and  how  it  becomes  the  justifica- 
tion of  man;  St.  John's  aim  is  to  show  the  nature  of  Eternal 
Z//>,  and  how  man  participates  therein.  Hence  the  different 
tone  of  their  moral  teaching.  The  aim  of  St.  Paul  is  human 
and  practical,  and  he  dwells  incessantly  on  Faith,  Hope,  and 
Charity.  St.  John's  Divine  idealism  is  mainly  occupied  with 
the  abstract  conceptions  of  Love,  and  Life,  and  Light.  St. 
Paul  is  pleading  with  men  as  they  are,  and  building  them  up 
into  what  they  should  be.  St.  John  assumes  that  the  Chris- 
tians to  whom  he  writes  are  resting  with  him  in  the  full  knowl- 
edge of  Christ.  The  Churches  of  St.  Paul  are  full  of  disturb- 
ing elements;  the  Church  which  St.  John  mentally  addresses 
is  the  true  and  inner  Church,  which  has  no  new  doctrine  to 
learn,  which  has  received  the  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and 
which  is  separated  by  an  unimaginable  abyss  from  the  world 
and  from  its  own  false  members.'  St.  Paul  is  ever  yearning 
for  an  ultimate  fraternity  of  all  men,  a  universal  and  absolute 
triumph  of  the  work  of  redemption;  St.  John  fixes  his  eyes 
on  the  Perfect  Church  and  the  Perfect  Christian,  with  whom 


I  John  ii.  20  ; 


FINALITY    ON   THE    WRITINGS    OF   ST.    JOHN.         59 1 

the  virulence  of  evil  and  the  ultimate  destiny  of  evil  seem  to 
have  no  immediate  concern.' 

5.  Now  we  cannot  suppose  that  these  blessed  and  mighty 
thoughts  occurred  for  the  first  time  on  St.  John's  written  page. 
They  must  have  been  previously  expressed  in  his  oral  teach- 
ing. And  would  it  have  been  strange  if — after  having  heard 
so  much  about  the  Life  of  Christ,  so  much  about  His  nature 
and  person,  so  many  of  His  discourses,  so  many  applications 
of  the  truth  of  His  Gospel  to  meet  every  phrase  of  moral 
temptation  and  philosophic  difficulty — the  Bishops  and  Elders 
came  to  St.  John  to  urge  him,  before  he  died,  to  set  forth  his 
testimony  to  the  world  in  writing?  At  first  he  shrank  from  so 
solemn  a  task  out  of  humility.^  But  on  their  still  pressing 
him,  "Fast  with  me  for  three  days,"  he  answered — so  runs  the 
deeply-interesting  tradition  preserved  for  us  in  the  Murato- 
rian  fragment — "and  let  us  tell  one  another^  any  revelation 
which  may  be  made  to  us  severally  (for  or  against  the  plan). 
On  the  same  night  it  was  revealed  to  the  Apostle  Andrew  that 
John  should  relate  all  in  his  own  name,  and  that  all  should 
review  his  writing."  "And  then,"  says  St.  Jerome,  in  his 
allusion  to  this  tradition,  "after  the  fast  was  ended,  steeped 
with  inspired  truth  {revclatione  saturatus),  he  indited  the 
heaven-sent  preface,  '/;/  the  begin riing  was  the  Word.'  "^ 

Such,  then,  having  been  the  origin  of  the  Gospel,  it  sup- 
plies us  with  a  certain  clue  to  the  origin  of  the  Epistle.  A 
mere  glance  at  the  two  writings  shows  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
there  is  the  closest  possible  connexion  between  them,  and 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Gospel  was  the  earlier  of  the  two.^ 
For  the  Gospel  contains  the  more  explicit,  the  Epistle  the  more 


'  See  the  able  essay,  "  Paul  et  yeatt.,''^  in  Retiss,  Theol.  Chret.  ii.  sj2-6oo. 

2  Epiplian.  Ilaer.  li.  12,  610  vo-repov  a.va.'^KO.^ti  to  aytov  TrveC/itt  jrapaiTOVjueroi'  .  .  .  hC 
cvAa^eta^'  Acal  Tan-etvo(/)po<Tvvr)f.  Comp.  Euseb  iii.  24  (ewava-yices),  and  Jer.  Frol.  in  Matt. 
("  Coactus  ab  omnibus  paene  tunc  Asiae  episcopis,"  etc.). 

3  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  alterutrum.  as  in  the  Vulg.  of  James  v.  16  (Westcott, 
Hist.  0/  CnficDij  p.  527  ;   St.  John,  p.  xxxv.). 

■•  Jer.  Coinm.  in  Afntt.  Prol.  Comp.  Clem.  Alex.  a/>.  Euseb.  H.  K.  vi.  14.  But  see 
I?asnage.  viii.  2.  §  6.  'I'his  was  afterwards  improved  into  the  stor)'  that  he  wrote  the  whole 
Gospel  impromptu  'avTocrxeSiacTTl),  and  that  his  autograph,  in  letters  of  gold,  was  preserved 
in  the  Church  of  Ephesus  (see  Lampe,  Proleg.  p.  171). 

^  The  reader  will  find  the  proof  of  this  placed  visibly  before  him  if  he  will  study  the  paral- 
lels between  the  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  as  gathered  (among  others)  by 
Canon  Westcott.  in  his  edition  of  the  Gospel.  There  are  no  less  than  thirty-five  such  pas- 
sages, and  it  may  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  they  are  neither  borrowed  nor  imitated,  but  inde- 
pendently introduced  in  the  way  which  would  be  most  natural  in  two  works  written  V>y  the 
same  author.  More  than  half  of  the  parallels  are  drawn  from  the  last  discourses  (John  xii.- 
xvii.).  To  me  it  seems  clear  that  the  Epistle  represents  the  later,  less  developed,  and  more 
allusive  form  of  expression.  Reuss  says  that  the  Gospel  is  needed  as  a  commentary  on  the 
Epistle  ;  but  it  is  at  least  equally  true  to  say  that  the  Epistle  is  needed  as  an  application  of  the 
Gospel.  It  is  clear  that  both  gain  indefinitely  when  they  are  read  together.  St.  Clemens  im- 
plies that  the  Episde  was  written  after  the  Gospel,  for  he  says  that  "•  the  Epistle  begins  with 
a  spiritual  T^xo&m,  following  that  o/the  Gospel,  and  in  unison  with  it"  {Adunibratt.  p.  1009). 


592  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

allusive  and  concentrated  expressions.  The  Gospel  is  intelli- 
gible by  itself;  the  Epistle  would  hardly  be  intelligible  without 
some  previous  instruction  to  explain  its  phraseology.  The 
Gospel  shows  us  how  various  expressions  originated;  the 
Epistle  adopts,  generalises,  and  applies  them.  The  Gospel 
furnishes  us  with  a  history,  inspired  throughout  by  certain  im- 
manent ideas;  the  Epistle  assumes  those  ideas  to  be  known, 
and  points  out  their  practical  bearing.  The  Gospel  deals  with 
the  manifestation  of  the  Word  in  the  flesh  as  an  event  which 
the  Evangelist  has  actually  witnessed  in  all  its  phases;  the 
Epistle  shows  how  that  event  bears  on  the  errors  which  were 
beginning  to  creep  into  the  Church,  and  on  the  lives  of  its  in- 
dividual members. 

We  may,  therefore,  safely  conclude  that  the  Epistle  had 
distinct  reference  to  the  Gospel;  but  we  may  also  infer  that 
they  were  published  together,  or  in  very  close  succession. 
The  Epistle  implies  that  the  truths  of  the  Gospel  are  known 
to  the  reader  with  all  the  freshness  of  recent  study.  It  is 
based'  upon  them  as  though  they  w^ould  be  already  prominent 
in  the  reader's  mind.  This  is  explicable  if  we  suppose  that 
the  one  treatise  accompanied  the  other,  and  it  would  also  ac- 
count for  the  absence  of  salutation  and  benediction,  which 
would  only  partially  be  accounted  for  by  the  encyclical  char- 
acter of  the  Epistle.  The  Epistle  is  most  easily  understood  if 
we  suppose  it  to  be  addressed  not  only  to  the  Churches  of 
Asia,  whom  the  Apostle  may  have  had  primarily  in  view,  but 
to  all  readers  of  the  Gospel.  The  external  proof  of  this  is  in- 
deed insignificant;  but  it  is  sufficiently  established  by  internal 
probability.  If  we  may  accept  with  reasonable  confidence  the 
tradition  that  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  the  Apocalypse,  was  writ- 
ten in  Patmos  and  published  in  Ephesus,  the  same  tradition 
will  apply  to  the  Epistle  also.'  And  this  would  be  a  further 
light  on  the  absence  of  salutations.  Patmos  is  a  small  and 
rocky  island,  with  few  inhabitants.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it 
had  any  Christian  community  within  its  narrow  limits;  but 
even  if  it  had,  such  a  community  would  be  all  but  wholly  un- 
known, and  could  hardly  be  regarded  as  an  organised  Church. 

6.  The  only  supposed  clue  as  to  the  readers  to  whom  the 
Epistle  was  addressed  is  the  curious  statement  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, in  one  single  passage,  that  it  was  written  "to  the  Par- 
thians."     It  is  clear  that  this  is  either  a  misreading,  or  a 

"Patmos  was  within  a  day's  reach  of  Ephesus,  and  if  St.  John  had  already  felt  that  the 
loneliness  of  the  island  was  suitable  to  meditation,  he  might  have  been  led  to  retire  thither 
once  more  svhile  he  was  meditating  on  his  last  and  greatest  work. 


FINALITY   ON   THE   WRITINGS   OF   ST.    JOHN.         593 

blunder.  If,  however,  it  be  a  misreading,  all  the  conjectural 
emendations  of  it  have  been  quite  unsuccessful.  Hug's  sup- 
position, that  it  crept  in  by  mistake  from  the  superscription 
of  the  Second  Epistle,  ''pros  parthenoiis^''  "to  Virgins,"  will 
be  considered  farther  on.^ 

7.  The  supposition  that  the  Apostle  wrote  in  Patmos  well 
accords  with  the  whole  tone  of  the  Epistle.  It  was  written  evi- 
dently at  a  time  when  the  Church  was  not  under  the  stress  of 
special  persecutions.^  Dangers  an^  sufferings  are  not  alluded 
to;  there  are  no  trumpet-calls  to  courage  or  endurance.  This 
period  of  peace  may  have  been  due  to  the  crushing  destruc- 
tion which  had  now  fallen  on  the  Jewish  nationality;  for,  as 
we  are  again  and  again  informed,  both  in  history  and  in  Scrip- 
ture, the  deadly  animosities  of  the  Gentiles  were  in  the  early 
days  stirred  up  for  the  most  part  by  Jewish  hatred.^  Now 
in  the  Epistle  there  is  no  distinct  reference  either  to  Jews  or 
Gentiles.  All  the  old  questions  between  the  Church  and  these 
two  great  masses  of  mankind  have  sunk  out  of  sight.  The 
controversies  as  to  the  relations  which  should  subsist  between 
Jewish  and  Gentile  converts  within  the  limits  of  the  Church 
itself  are  regarded  as  settled.  In  the  eyes  of  St.  John  there 
are  but  two  great  existing  communities,  and  those  are  not 
Jew^s  and  Gentiles,  but  the  Church  and  the  world.  The  sever- 
ance between  them  is  complete  and  absolute.  In  this  respect, 
as  in  so  many  others,  the  Epistle  recalls  the  last  discourses  of 
our  Lord.  In  them,  too,  the  hatred  of  the  world  means  that 
of  the  Jew  no  less  than  that  of  the  Gentile.  But  this  hatred 
is  here  calmly  assumed  without  being  dwelt  upon.  There  is 
no  complaint  respecting  it.  Not  a  word  is  said  as  to  its  origin; 
not  a  hint  is  breathed  as  to  its  issues.  The  world  is  not  even 
spoken  of  as  a  source  of  special  temptation,  or  as  a  sphere  for 
missionary  activity.  It  is  simply  set  on  one  side  as  a  satanic 
kingdom,  a  kingdom  of  darkness  and  of  death,  with  which  it 
is  impossible  to  conceive  that  the  Christian  should  have  any- 
thing to  do.     But  such  a  view  is  little  possible  to  one  who 


1  See  iiifra^  on  the  Second  Epistle. 

2  This  would  point  to  some  date  after  the  reign  of  Nero  (a.d.  54-68).  We  see  further  that 
it  must  have  been  written,  as  the  Gospel  was,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (a.d.  70),  and 
either  before  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  in  a.d.  95.  during  the  reign  ofDomitian  (a.d. 
91-96),  or  between  that  date  and  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  in  the  reicjn  of  Trajan  (a.d. 
98).  Ewald  {Die  Johati.  Schri/ten,  i.  471)  suggests  .\.v>.  90  as  a  probable  date.  Canon 
Wcstcott  says  that  the  Gospel  may  be  referred  to  the  last  dccennium  of  the  first  century,  and 
even  to  the  close  of  it  (.9^.  yolin,  p.  xl.).  This  view  is  supported  both  by  early  tradition  anil 
by  the. facts  that  (i)  the  Gospel  assumes  a  knowledge  of  the  substance  of  the  Synoptic  narra- 
tives: (2)  it  deals  with  later  aspects  of  Christian  life  and  opinion  than  these  ;  (3)  it  corre- 
sponds with  the  circumstances  of  a  new  world  [id.,  pp.  xx.xv.-xl). 

3  Acts  xvii.  ;  i  ihess.  i.  14-16;  ii.  15  ;  Phil.  iii.  2,  etc.  See  too  the  remarks  of  Justin  in 
his  Dial.  c.   IVyph. 

.    38 


594  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

lives  in  the  heart  of  o^reat  cities,  and  is  in  daily  struggle  with 
hostile  forces  from  without.  It  would  be  far  more  possible 
to  the  contemplative  recluse  in  some  secluded  retirement  than 
to  the  toiling  Apostle  in  the  streets  of  Sardis  or  Ephesus. 

8.  Vet  there  are  dangers  which  St.  John  evidently  con- 
templates. They  are  dangers  from  heresy  and  from  anti- 
christs; dangers  not  arising  from  attacks  of  the  world  outside 
the  Church,  but  from  developments  of  the  world  within  it. 
The  perils  which  the  Christians  have  to  encounter  are  perils 
from  those  who  themselves  profess  the  faith;  from  wolves — 
clad  in  sheep's  clothing;  from  Satan — disguised  as  an  angel 
of  light.  What  St.  John  dreads  is  not  flagrant  wickedness 
and  open  blasphemy,  but  "false  types  of  goodness,"  and 
"false  types  of  orthodoxy,"  Such  perils  had  existed  from 
the  very  earliest  days  in  which  the  Church  was  a  Church  at 
all;  but  now,  in  the  pause  from  outward  assault,  they  were 
assuming  subtler  and  more  seductive  forms.  In  one  shape  or 
other,  in  their  moral  or  their  intellectual  aspects,  every  Apos- 
tle has  lifted  up  against  them  his  warning  voice,  St.  Paul 
had  been  obliged,  even  weeping,  to  warn  his  converts  against 
false  teachers;  St.  Peter,  St.  Jude,  St.  James  had  "burst  into 
plain  thunderings  and  lightnings"  against  them.  Far  different 
is  the  tone  of  St.  John.  That  they  are  greatly  in  his  thoughts 
is  evident.  Nay,  since  he  frequently  refers  to  their  several 
tenets,  since  in  two  passages  he  expressly  names  them,'  since 
the  very  last  words  of  his  Epistle  refer  to  them,"  it  is  clear  that 
it  was  one  of  his  primary  objects  to  protect  the  Church  from 
their  insidious  teachings.  '\'et  how  instructive  is  the  tone  in 
which  he  speaks  about  them!  It  is  calm,  not  tumultuous  or 
agitated.  It  leads  to  the  establishment  of  positive  truths,  not 
to  anathemas  against  negative  errors.  It  does  not  betray  the 
least  touch  of  anxiety.  What  St.  John  has  to  teach  is  the  nature 
of  eternal  life;  its  concentration  in  the  Word;  its  communica- 
tion to  the  world.  The  passages  about  the  antichrists  might 
even  be  omitted  without  materially  affecting  the  structure  of 
the  Epistle.  Here  again  we  find  not  only  the  stamp  of  final- 
ity, on  which  we  have  already  dwelt,  but  an  indication  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  St.  John  was  writing.  He  is  not 
in  the  thick  of  the  battle.  His  soul  is  not  harrowed  by  daily 
watching  the  ravages  of  error.  Removed  from  the  scene  of 
conflict,  living  in  daily  meditation  on  the  truth,  in  daily  com- 
munion with  God,  he  can  write  in  the  tone  of  serene  joy,  of 


X  John  ii.  20-26;  iv.  1-6.  2  j  John  v.  21 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  STYLE  OF  ST.  JOHN.       595 

sovereign  conviction.  It  is  the  peculiarfty  which  we  have 
already  noticed  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  The 
keynote  of  that  letter  is  joy.  In  the  prison,  amid  general  de- 
sertion, left  face  to  face  with  God,  St.  Paul  seems  as  if  the 
one  thought  which  inspires  his  whole  being  is  "Rejoice  in  the 
Lord  always:  again  I  will  say  Rejoice."  It  is  the  same  with 
St.  John.  He  speaks  with  the  composure  which  befits  the  last 
of  the  Apostles,  the  composure  of  a  man  who  knew  the  cer- 
tainty, who  had  witnessed  the  victories  of  the  faith.  "The 
unique  consciousness  which  an  Apostle,  as  he  grew  older, 
could  carry  within  himself,  and  which  he,  once  the  favourite 
disciple,  had  in  a  peculiar  measure;  the  calm  superiority, 
clearness,  and  decision  in  thinking  on  Christian  subjects;  the 
rich  experience  of  a  long  life  steeled  in  the  victorious  struggle 
with  every  unchristian  element;  and  a  glowing  language  lying 
concealed  under  their  calmness,  which  makes  us  feel  intui- 
tively that  it  does  not  in  vain  commend  us  to  love,  as  the  high- 
est attainment  of  Christianity — all  this  coincides  so  remarkably 
in  this  Epistle,  that," — in  spite  of  its  purely  impersonal  char- 
acter and  the  lofty  delicacy  with  which,  as  in  -the  Gospel,  the. 
writer  retires  into  the  background,  unwilling  to  speak  of  him- 
self— "every  reader  of  that  period,  probably  without  any  fur- 
ther intimation,  might  readily  determine  who  he  was."'  In 
its  "unruffled  and  heavenly  repose,  it  appears  to  be  the  tone 
not  so  much  of  a  father  talking  with  his  beloved  children,  as 
of  a  glorified  saint  speaking  to  mankind  from  a  higher  world. 
Never  in  any  writing  has  the  doctrine  of  heavenly  love,  of  a 
love  working  in  stillness,  a  love  ever  unwearied,  never  ex- 
hausted, so  thoroughly  proved,  and  approved  itself,  as  in  this 
Epistle."' 


CHAPTER    XXXin. 


CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    MIND    AND    STYLE    OF    ST.   JOHN. 

"Columba  sancta  Ecclesia  est  ;   quae  duas  alas  habet  per  dilectionem  Dei  ct  proximi." — 
A.  DE  St.  Victoke. 

The  effect  which  the  Epistle  thus  produces  upon  us  is  due 
partly  to  the  habit  of  St.  John's  mind,  partly  to  the  peculiar- 
ities of  his  style. 

I.   One  great  peculiarity  of  his   mind — on  which  we  have 
already   incidentally  touched — is   his  co?itemplativencss — what 

1  Ewald,  Die  Johan.  Schri/ten,  i.  431.  "  Id.  ib. 


596  Till-:  i:arlv  days  of  Christianity. 

has  been  sometime?;,  but  not  very  accurately,  called  his  mysti- 
cism. It  was  the  invariable  tendency  of  his  mind  in  these  his 
later  years  to  live  and  move  in  the  region  of  abstract  thought. 
The  abstractions  are,  however,  by  no  means  treated  as  ab- 
stractions, but  rather  as  facts  and  experiences  of  life.  In  St. 
John  we  see  yet  another  illustration  of  the  fundamental  dis- 
tinction between  the  Nominalist  and  the  Realist; — the  Nomi- 
nalist who  regards  abstract  terms  as  representing  nothing  but 
the  generalisations  of  the  mind  out  of  concrete  presentments, 
the  Realist  who  regards  them  as  representing  those  eternal 
ideas  which  are  the  only  absolute  realities.  St.  John  is  en- 
tirely a  Realist.  It  has  been  truly  said  of  him  that  "  Utiiver- 
Siilia  ante  rem''  is  the  principle  of  all  his  philosophy.  With 
him  Ideas  —  Light,  Darkness — Truth,  Falsehood  —  are  not 
mere  concepts,  but  are  the  actual  reality,  the  principles  of  life 
out  of  which  all  individual  things  emerge.  In  his  point  of 
view  Mankind,  the  individual  man,  the  particular  action,  only 
exist  as  the  Idea  prescribes.  The  Idea,  indwelling  in  them, 
moulds  them  as  a  law,  by  virtue  of  which  all  that  belongs  to 
^hem  is  fashioned.  Thus,  to  St.  John,  history  is  the  invisible 
translated  into  the  visible.^  In  the  Gospel  it  is  shown  how 
the  ideas  have  been  introduced  into  this  earthly  life;  in  the 
Epistle  how  the  life  of  the  individual  may  be  modified  in  ac- 
cordance with  them.'^  Thus  once  more  we  see  how  every 
thought  which  St.  John  utters  depends  upon  his  doctrine  of 
"the  Word  made  flesh."  The  Divine  ideas  of  which  he 
speaks — Truth,  Life,  Light — are  realities,  and  the  only  real- 
ities, because  they  are  inherent  in  the  Logos.  They  are  in 
men  only  because  He  is  in  men,  and  they  are  the  only  Life, 
the  only  Light,  the  only  Truth.  The  Gospel  shows  how,  by 
the  manifestation  of  the  Logos  on  earth,  the  fulness  which 
was  in  Him  is  imparted  to  us;  the  Epistle  speaks  throughout 
of  our  personal  appropriation  of  this  fulness  and  the  way  in 
which  it  is  expressed  in*  Christian  lives. 

2.  But  all  this  at  once  accounts  for  another  of  his  charac- 
teristics— namely,  the  sovereign  calm  of  the  Apostle's  tone. 
In  this  region  of  the  Idea  there  is  no  room  for  jarring  con- 
flicts. He  is  building  the  superstructure,  not  laying  the  foun- 
dation. He  is  reminding,  not  instructing.  He  is  perfecting, 
not  commencing.  He  is  stating,  not  arguing.  He  is  deliver- 
ing a  solemn  homily,  not  conducting  an   embittered  contro- 


'  JJ.^.»P'.  PP-  376,  377- 
*    I  lie  (.ospcl  seeks  to  deepen  faith  in  Christ,  the   Kpistlc  sets  forth   the   ri-liteousncs 
whi.Ji  In  iieccss.iry  to  faith,  and  only  possible  tofuith"  (Hoffmann). 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  STYLE  OF  ST.  JOHN.       597 

versy.  He  can  appeal  to  his  readers,  as  those  who  know;'  as 
those  whose  sins  have  loeen  forgiven;  who  have  an  unction 
from  the  Holy  One;^  who  already  believe;''  to  whom  the  new 
commandment  can  be  represented  as  the  old.  And  this  is  the 
reason  why  his  defensive  polemics  can  take  the  form  of  posi- 
tive instruction.  He  can  teach  true  Christians  to  conquer 
heresy  by  the  expulsive  power  of  right  affections.  He  can  in- 
vigorate their  interior  life  as  the  best  means  of  strengthening 
their  outward  warfare.  'Jlie  multiplication  of  antichrists  was 
a  serious  danger,  but  the  Churches  would  be  less  likely  to  suc- 
cumb to  it  if  he  could  inspire  them  with  the  victorious  tranquil- 
lity with  which  he  himself  regarded  all  dangers,  as  he  looked 
forth  on  the  troubled  sea  from  the  haven  of  liis  island  rest. 

3.  A  third  secret  of  St.  John's  power  lies  in  his  style.  It 
is  a  style  absolutely  unique,  supremely  original,  and  full  of 
charm  and  sweetness.  Under  the  semblance  of  extreme  sim- 
plicity, it  hides  unfathomable  depths.  It  is  to  a  great  extent 
intelligible  to  the  youngest  child,  to  the  humblest  Christian; 
yet  to  enter  into  its  full  meaning  exceeds  the  power  of  the 
deepest  theologian.  Thus,  St.  John  remarkably  exemplifies 
the  definition  that  genius  is  "the  heart  of  childhood  taken  uj) 
and  glorified  in  the  powers  of  manhood."  In  his  Gospel  and 
Epistles  the  artless  ingenuousness  of  a  child  is  intimately 
blended  with  the  deep  thoughtfulness  of  a  man.  But  the 
style,  by  its  very  characteristics,  would  be  ill  suited  to  contro- 
versy. It  is  not  syllogistic,  like  that  of  St.  Paul;  nor  rhetori- 
cal, like  that  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It 
is  rather  contemplative,  "noting  the  substance  of  the  thoughts 
without  marking  the  mutual  relations  of  the  thoughts  them- 
selves."* The  logic  moves,  as  has  been  said,  in  circles  rather 
than  straight  onwards.^  The  sentences  are  ordinated  by  sim- 
ple conjunctions,  not  subordinated  to  each  other  by  final  par- 
ticles. The  periods  VlXq  paratactic,  not  syntactic.  The  par- 
ticles, as  in  Aramaic,  are  few."  Hence,  though  the  Greek  is 
pure,  in  so  far  that  it  is  free  from  solecisms,  it  is  as  unlike 

1  I  John  ii.  12-14.  "  I  John  ii.  20,  27.  3  ^  John  v;  13. 

■1  I'raiine  calls  it  "  the  dialectics  of  contemplation." 

•''  Diisterdicck.  Tholuck  had  already  given  to  St.  John's  style  the  epithet  "cycloidal." 
Rcnan  admits  that  the  style  has  "fervour,  and  occasionally  a  kind  of  sublimity,  but  withal 
somethins?  inflated,  unreal,  ol^scure — an  utter  want  o^  fiat7'ete." 

^  l"'brard,  Introd.  He  points  out  that  the  sentences  are  often  joined  by  #cat,  when  St.  Paul 
would  have  used  6e  or  "yap.  St.  John  constantly  makes  use  of  anaphora^  i.e.,  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  new  sentence  by  the  repetition  of  a  word  which  has  just  been  used.  Erasmus  excel- 
lently describes  it  :  "  Dicendi  genus  ita  velut  ansulis  ex  sese  coha;rentibus  contextus,  non- 
nunquam  ex  contrariis,  nonnunquam  ex  similibu.s.  nonnunquam  ex  iisdem  subinde  repetitis 
.  .  .  ut  orationis  quodque  membrum  semper  excipiat  prius,  sic  ut  prioris  finis  initium  sit  se- 
quentis." 


598  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

(;reek:  as  possible  in  its  periodic  structure.  There  is  scarcely 
a  single  oblique  sentence  throughout  St.  John's  Gospel. 
Often  the  sentences  follow  each  other  without  any  conjunction 
between  them,  and  only  by  taking  up  again  the  chief  word  in 
the  previous  clause.  But  under  the  appearance  of  incessant 
repetitions  the  thought  is  still  constantly  advanced.  "The 
still  waters,"  as  Herder  says,  "run  deep,  flowing  along  with 
the  easiest  words,  but  the  profoundest  meaning."  The 
thoughts  are  pressed  home  in  the  simplest  fashion  of  Aramaic 
idiom  by  being  expressed  first  positively,  then  negatively.' 
They  gain  further  from  the  numerical  symmetry  of  the  clauses 
into  which  they  are  thrown.^  The  same  word  occurs  again 
and  again  as  the' leading  word  of  an  entire  section  until  it  be- 
comes impressive  by  the  very  monotony  of  its  iteration.  It  is 
like  a  stone  flung  into  a  smooth  lake,  round  which  the  ripples 
widen  to  the  shore  in  concentric  circles.  No  style  could  be 
worse  to  imitate.  In  feeble  hands  it  w^ould  deserve  the  charges 
of  weakness,  tautology,  senility,  which  have  been  so  idly  made 
against  it.  On  the  other  hand,  no  style  could  better  suit  the 
character  of  a  mind  absorbed  in  heavenly  contemplation; — of 
a  mind  filled  wtih  conceptions  of  a  depth  so  inexhaustible  that 
words,  however  often  repeated,  failed"  to  convey  the  fullness 
of  meaning  with  which  they  were  charged. 

4.  But — to  revert  to  the  characteristics  of  St.  John's  later 
teachings — it  must  not  be  supposed  that  St.  John  has  no 
sternness  in  him.  Had  such  been  the  case  he  could  not  have 
been  the  Son  of  Thunder.  Probably  the  natural  character  of 
no  man  had  ever  been  so  softened  and  ennobled  as  his  had 
been  by  the  long  years  of  Christian  suffering  and  Christian 
education;  yet  the  elements  of  the  natural  character  remained. 
The  essence  of  St.  John's  temperament,  the  foundation  of  his 
teaching,  in  these  his  later  years,  was  love;  but  where  there 
is  an  intense  and  perfect  love  there  must  also  be  hatred  of  all 
that  most  offends  and  injures  love;  not  hatred  of  men — that 


St.  John  seems  to  "  think  in  antitheses."  It  is  his  manner  "  to  construct  the  matter  of 
a  positive  Idea  out  of  its  combination  or  contrast  with  its  opposite."  By  a  curious  variation  of 
.style,  for  winch  it  is  not  easy  to  account,  we  have  conditional  sentences  ("if  we  walk,"  "if  we 
*-'^'  /«  L.  i*^  confess")  in  the  first  section  of  the  Epistle  (i.  6:  ii.  8),  and  participial  construc- 
tion (    he  that  lovcth,"  "he  that  saith")  afterwards. 

^  There  is  an  interesting  specimen  of  this  numerical  concinnity  of  expression  in  ii.  9-1 1, 
wl.crc,  in  steady  progression,  the  first  verse  has  ofie  predicate  :  "  He  who  saith  that  he  is  in 
tJie light,  and  hateth  his  brother"  (a)  "  is  in  the  darkness  even  still."  The  second  verse  has 
t7,'o  predicates  :  "He  who  lovcth  his  brother"  (a)  "  abideth  in  the  light,"  0)  "and  there  is 
no  stiimblingblock  in  him."  The  third  verse  has  ^Aret-  predicates  :  "  But  he  who  hateth  his 
brother  (a)  'is  in  the  darkness,"  0)  "and  walketh  in  the  darkness,"  (y)  "and  knoweth  not 
whither  he  goeth,  because  the  darkness  blinded  his  eves."  The  .symmetry  is  so  absolute  in  its 
musical  flow  and  rhvthmic  balance  that  even  the  double  clause  of 'the  /ast  line  corresponds  to 
the  double  clause  ol  the  Jlrs^. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  STYLE  OF  ST.  JOHN.       599 

becomes  impossible — but  hatred  of  all  that  degrades  men  into 
beasts  or  devils.  It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  there  is  an 
accent  of  intense  severity — of  a  severity  even  more  intense 
than  that  of  St.  James — in  such  words  as, 

''He  that  doetJi  sin  is  from  the  Devil  ^  because  the  Devil  sin- 
neth  from  the  beginning. "  "  Every  one  who  abideth  in  Hijn  sin- 
neth  not;  every  one  ivho  sinneth  hath  not  seen  Him,  nor  even 
known  Him.''  '' Every  one  who  doeth  not  righteousness  is  not 
fro?n  God,  nor  he  ivho  loveth  not  his  brother. ' ' ' 

How  does  such  language  accord  with  Christ's  unbounded 
love  to  sinners,  to  publicans,  to  harlots,  even  to  Pharisees? 
How  is  it  reconcilable  with  the  paternal  tenderness,  the  over- 
.  flowing  love,  the  gentle  tolerance,  which  breathes  through  the 
rest  of  the  Epistle?  How  is  it  in  unison  with  certain  and  uni- 
versal Christian  experience?  How  is  it  consistent  with  St. 
John's  own  gentleness  to  most  flagrant  offenders?  How  can  it 
be  left  side  by  side  with  language  so  apparently  contradictory 
to  it  as  that  which  urges  God's  children  to  confess  their  sin, 
and  even  lays  it  down  that, 

*  'If  tve  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  zue  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 
truth  is  7iot  in  us.''' 

Does  not  the  only  solution  lie  in  the  fact  that  here  too,  St. 
John  is  moving  in  the  regions  of  the  ideal,  and  that  every  sin 
is,  in  its  ultimate  issue,  in  its  final  nature,  Satanic?  As  chil- 
dren of  God  we  cannot  sin,  and  children  of  God  we  are.  We 
are  so  by  His  gift,^  we  must  become  so  by  our  own  act.  In 
so  far  as  we  by  our  own  choice  are  sinners,  so  far  we  are  not 
children  of  God;  and  if,  at  the  last  day — if,  in  the  general  and 
unerring  sentence  of  judgment  pronounced  upon  us — we  are 
declared  to  be  in  a  state  of  permanent  and  willing  sin,'^  then, 
in  spite  of  the  imparted  gift  of  sonship,  we  are  children  of  the 
Devil,  The  idea}  of  our  position  as  children  of  God  is  the 
impossibility  to  sin;  and  a  nearer  and  nearer  approximation  to 
this  ideal  is  required  of  us  in  actual  life.  But  if  to  the  very 
end  we  fall  very  far  short  of  that  ideal,  and  so  might  be  driven 
to  despair,  St.  John  himself  has  saved  us  from  any  such  de- 
spair by  his  previous  sayings  that  if  we  confess  our  sins  God 
will  forgive  them,""  and  that  if  any  man  sin  we  have  an  Advo- 
cate with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous,  and  He  is 
the  propitiation  for  our  sins.'' 

1  I  John  iii.  4-10.  2  ;.  S-io.  3  iii.  1. 

*  The  force  of  the  present  tenses,  and  the  alleviation  which  they  introduce  into  the  force  of 
the  sentences,  must  not  be  overlooked.  ^  i.  9. 

<*  ii.  12.  We  may  remark  in  passing  that  this  word  "  propitiation  "  (iXacr/Lios)  (here  and  in 
iv.  10)  is  one  of  the  very  few  which  introduce  into  the  Epistle  conceptions  which  are  not  di- 


600  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHPaSTIANITY. 

5.  The  personal  question  indeed  remains,  ''If  ivc  say 
that  7UC  have  fellowship  with  Him^  and  ivalk  in  the  darkness^  we 
He.''  ''He  who  doeth  sin  is  of  the  Devil.'''  "If  any  one  come 
to  you  and  bring  not  his  teachings  i-eceive  him  not  into  your  house, 
and  give  him  no  greeting."^  Are  those  the  accents  of  the 
Apostle  of  Love?  Does  not  St.  John  by  such  expressions  and 
such  advice  reopen  the  floodgates  of  party  railing,  ignorant 
zeal,  malignant  persecution,  bitter  intolerance?  So,  at  any 
rate,  those  have  thought  who  forget  that  hatred  of  any  kind  is 
the  essential  note  of  the  world.  Those  very  "texts"  have 
been  seized  with  avidity  by  the  fierce  party-spirit  which  all 
the  Apostles  alike  so  unhesitatingly  denounce  as  godless  and 
anti-Christian.  Heated  controversialists  have  revelled  in  tTie. 
imaginary  license  to  set  aside  all  the  precepts  of  Christian  love 
which  breathe  from  every  page  of  the  New  Testament  in  order 
that  they  may,  with  these  texts,  bless  and  approve  with  sober 
brows  the  very  sin  which  is  never  more  deadly  or  more  inex- 
cusable than  when  it  shamelessly  intrudes  into  the  sphere  of 
religious  life.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that  such  partisans  wrest 
these,  as  they  do  also  the  other  Scriptures,  to  their  own  perdi- 
tion. These  phrases,  rightly  understood,  belong  to  that  sphere 
of  the  Ideal  and  the  Abstract  in  which  St.  John  moves,  but 
in  which  those  do  not  move  who  pervert  his  meaning  in  order 
to  undo  the  teaching  which  he  loved  best.  No  texts  in  Scrip- 
ture can  authorise  any  man  to  hate  and  persecute  those  who 
teach  the  truths  which  he  in  his  ignorance  regards  as  heresy. 
St.  John's  words  do  not  confer  on  persecuting  zeal  the  attri- 
bute of  infallibility.  They  do  not  exempt  religious  differ- 
ences from  the  realm  of  Christian  charity.  If  they  did,  they 
would  have  to  be  themselves  overruled  as  proofs  of  weakness, 
because  in  that  case  they  would  run  counter  to  the  best  and 
holiest  teachings  of  him  who  uttered  them.  Religious  perse- 
cution, religious  intolerance,  religious  hatred  are  not  religious 
but  irreligious,  even  if  St.  John  be  distorted  into  their  de- 
fence. If  he  did  indeed  defend  them — as  he  does  not — his 
plea  could  only  be  due  to  the  still  lingering  traces  of  the 
Elijah  spirit;  it  could  only  be  ranked  with  the  conduct  of  St. 
Carlo  Borromeo,  who,  after  tending  the  plague-stricken  with 
the  gentleness  of  a  saint,  persecuted  those  whom  he  regarded 
as  heretics  with  the  fury  of  an  inquisitor.  The  Apostle  and 
Evangelist  of  Love  would  have  destroyed  the  very  essence  of 

rcctly  toucljcd  upon  in  the  Gospels.     Another  is  xP^o-^ia,  the  "unction"  of  the  Holy  One,  in 
ii.  20,  27.     Another  is  the  application  of  the  name  Paraclete  ("advocate  ")  to  Christ  (ii.  i), 
lhout;h  this  is  indeed  involved  in  John  xiv.  16. 
'  Sec  iii/ra  in  the  remarks  on  this  pass.-jge. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  STYLE  OF  ST.  JOHN.      6oi 

his  own  divinest  work  if  he  had  meant — as  I  believe  he  never 
meant — to  gratify  the  meanest  and  fiercest  champions  of  party 
in  the  indulgence  of  exactly  those  forms  of  hatred  which  have 
ever  been  the  most  virulent,  the  most  ignorant,  the  most  hate- 
ful, and  the  most  intense. 

6,  I  will  mention  only  one  more  characteristic  of  this  rich 
and  i)rofound  Epistle,  which  is,  that  though  it  is  ethical  and 
didactic,  it  does  not  resemble  the  treatment  of  ethics  by  any 
other  of  the  Apostles.  Here,  again,  the  manner  of  the  writer 
finds  a  fresh  illustration.  Other  Apostles  enter  into  many  de- 
tails, touch  on  many  successive  duties.  Not  so  St.  John.  In 
his  view  two  words  enclose  the  whole  cycle  of  moral  concep- 
tions. Those  two  words  are  Righteous4iess  and  Love.  Both 
words  have  their  roots  in  the  divine.  God  is  righteous.  God 
is  love.  Therefore,  man  must  be  righteous  towards  God,  and 
must  manifest  that  righteousness  by  love  towards  the  brethren. 
Even  these  broad  conceptions  are  lost  in  others  still  broader 
— namely,  those  of  Light  and  Truth.  God  is  Light,  and 
therefore  every  sin  partakes  of  the  nature,  and  belongs  to  the 
realm,  of  darkness.  God  is  True — i.e.^  Real,  and  therefore 
all  sin  partakes  of  the  nature  of  unreality  and  falsehood.  All 
details,  all  special  applications  are  involved  in  this.  He  who 
does  the  truth,  he  who  walks  in  the  light,  he  who  does  right- 
eousness, he  who  confesses  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  who 
loves  his  brother — he  has  eternal  life.  He  will  therefore  need 
no  instruction  as  to  outward  and  individual  acts.^  For  him 
even  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments,  and  all  ecclesiastical 
questions  of  organisation  and  ritual,  may,  in  St.  John's  man- 
ner, be  passed  over  as  "silent  presuppositions."  He  is  for- 
given; he  is  cleansed;  he  is  a  son  of  God.  His  faith  in  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  is  transposed  into  life,  and  his  life  in  Christ 
deepens  his  faith  in  Christ's  Divinity.  The  two  are  inextric- 
ably interlaced.  A  righteous  life  is  the  result  of  faith,  and 
faith  is  deepened  by  a  righteous  life.^  He  who  denies  Christ, 
he  who  "severs  Christ,"  is  of  the  Devil,  and  belongs  to  the 
lie,  the  world,  the  darkness.  Thus  St.  John  moves  as  through 
the  empyrean  in  the  region  of  absolute  antitheses.  All  con- 
troversy is  over  for  him.  Like  an  eagle  after  one  vast  beat 
of  his  wings,  so  this  "own  eagle  of  Christ" 

"  Scindit  iter  liquidum  cderes  neqiie  promovet  alas." 

^  See  ii.  27.  Hence  the  constant  words  oiSare  (ii.  20;  iii.  5,  15),  otSa/iJiei'  (iii.  2,  14  :  v.  15, 
18,  19.  20),  yiviIxTKOnev  (ii.  5.  18;  iii.  19.  24;  iv.  6,  13  ;  v.  2),  eyvuiKaixev  (iii.  16:  iv.  16).  eyvu)- 
Kare  (ii.  13,  14),  yivuxTKere  (ii.  29  ;  iv.  2),  SoKiixa^ere  (iv.  i).  I'hus  tlie  thought  that  they  al- 
ready knmv  the  truth  of  what  he  is  saying  recurs  some  thirty  times.  OTSa  represents  knowl- 
edge generally  ;  yiviitcTKOi  represents  "  recognition,"  "experiential  knowledge." 

'  IJruunc  (m  Lange's  Bibelwerk)^  Introd.  §  II.  ;  Hofuiann,  Schri/tbeii>eis,  p.  337. 


602  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

CHAPTER   XXXIV. 

OBJECT    AND    OUTLINE    OF    THE    FIRST     EPISTLE    OF     ST.   JOHN. 

"  Sed  Joannes  ala  bina 
Caritatis,  aquilina 
Forma  fertur  in  divina 

Puriori  lumine." — Adam  de  St.  Victore. 

After  these  considerations  we  shall,  I  trust,  be  better  pre- 
pared to  understand  St.  John's  object  in  the  Epistle,  and  how 
it  bears  on  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Epistle  was  writ- 
ten. We  shall  be  better  able  to  understand  that  it  is  a  co- 
herent whole,  and  that  its  purpose  is  worked  out  in  continuous 
development. 

As  to  the  object,  we  can  have  no  doubt,  because  St.  John 
tells  it  to  us  quite  distinctly  in  the  first  four  verses.  It  was 
to  set  forth  to  his  readers  his  witness  respecting  the  Word  of 
Life,  in  order  that  he  and  they  might  have  fellowship  with  one 
another  in  their  common  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  with 
His  Son,  and  that  in  consequence  of  this  their  joy  may  be 
full.  He  expresses  the  same  object  in  other  terms  at  the  end 
of  the  Epistle,  when  he  says  "These  things  I  have  written  to 
you  that  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  that  ye  may 
know  that  ye  have  eternal  life."^  In  pursuing  this  object  he 
shows  that  there  can  be  no  fellowship  with  God  without  right- 
eousness, rooted  in  faith  and  manifested  by  love;  and  that  the 
Christian  not  only  ought  Xo  live  such  a  life,  \ivXdoes  so,  because 
he  is  born  of  God.  Thus  does  St.  John  refute  the  antichris- 
tian  lie  which  was  already  prevalent.  He  would  empty  these 
souls  of  falsehood  by  filling  them  with  truth.  He  writes  in 
order  that,  by  fellowship  with  one  another  and  with  God  and 
His  Christ — by  perfected  joy,  by  assured  confidence  in  their 
present  possession  of  eternal  life — the  seductions  of  the  teach- 
ing of  antichrists  may  become  impossible  to  souls  filled  with 
Christian  love. 

An  analysis  of  the  Epistle,  such  as  may  serve  to  show  that 
it  is  not  merely  aphoristic,  is  perfectly  possible.  When  Cal- 
vin spoke  of  it  as  containing  '  'doctrine  mixed  with  exhorta- 
tion;" when  Episcopius  said  that  "the  method  of  treatment 
was  arbitrary,  and  not  bound  to  rules  of  art;"  they  had 
missed  its  meaning.     The  art  is  concealed,  but  it  is  consum- 

'  V.  13.^  The  reading  of  P.  is  here  most  probably  correct,  and  the  source  of  the  other  vari- 
ations— TttpTa  typajpa  (epistolary  aorist)  v[li.v  Iva.  eiS^re  on  C,uyi\v  e^eTe  aiuiviov,  tois  Trio-revov- 
c\.v  fit  TO  ofOfxa  TOW  vtoO  ^ov  ©eoiJ.  Compare  the  closely-analogous  description  of  the  object 
of  the  Gospel  in  John  xx.  31. 


OBJECT   OF   THE   FIRST  EPISTLE   OF   ST.  JOHN.       603 

mate.  The  method  is  unique,  but  it  is  most  powerful.  It  is 
an  entire  mistal<e  to  speak  of  the  Epistle  as  "incoherent,"  as 
a  congeries  of  scattered  remarks  about  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
about  the  blessings  of  adoption,  about  love,  and  as  "briefly 
touching  on  other  things  also,  such  as  being  on  our  guard 
against  impostors,  and  such  matters.'"  Schmid,  Oporinus,'^ 
Bengel,  and  the  other  scholars  who  first  endeavoured  to  prove 
its  consecutive  and  systematic  character,  rendered  a.  real  ser- 
vice to  biblical  theology.  The  student  who  reads  it  in  the 
light  of  some  well-considered  scheme,  will  gain  more  advantage 
from  it  than  others,  even  if  details  of  his  scheme  be  untenable. 
It  is,  for  instance,  very  tempting  to  arrange  the  Epistle  under 
the  three  heads  which  are  suggested  by  -the  three  great 
thoughts  that  God  is  Light,  God  is  Righteous,  God  is  Tove. 
I  myself  tried  hard  to  do  so  in  first  studying  the  Epistle. 
But  though  these  great  utterances  throw  some  light  on  the 
order  of  thought,  it  is  evident  that  they  are  not  the  pivots  of 
arrangement  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.^  Nor,  again,  is  it 
possible  to  analyse  the  Epistle,  as  Bengel  endeavoured  to  do, 
with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  an  attempt  into 
which  that  great  theologian  was  misled  by  his  acceptance  as 
genuine  of  the  verse  about  the  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses. 
There  is,  indeed,  as  we  shall  see,  a  remarkable  triplicity  in 
the  subordinate  divisions,  due  to  the  Hebraic  training  of  St. 
John,  and  to  the  rhythm  and  symmetry  of  the  sacred  idioms 
with  which  he  was  familiar.  Bengel,  of  course,  rightly  saw 
that  the  Epistle  falls  at  once  into  the  three  divisions  of 

Exordium,  i.  i — 4. 

Treatment  of  the  Subject,  i.  5 — v.  12. 

Conclusion,  v.  13 — 21. 
But  the  unreality  of  his  other  divisions  arose  from  his  attempt- 
ing to  analyse  the  Epistle  in  the  interests  of  an  a  priori  con- 
ception instead  of  following  step  by  step  its  own  indications. 
The  reason  why  it  is  so  difficult  to  analyse,  is  the  extreme 
richness  and  fulness  of  the  thoughts,  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  interfuse  each  other.     I  said  just  now  that  the  leading 

1  '•  Doctrinam  exhortationlbus  mistam  continet  .  .  .  sj>arsim  docendo  ct  exhortando  va- 
rius  est"  (Calvin). 

2  Joachim  Oporin,  in  a  Gottingen  programme.  "Z?^  cofistnnter  tenenda  co7nmuntone 
C7i>n  Patre  et  Filio — i.e.^  Joannis  E/>.  i.  nodis  interpretwn  liberatn,  etc.,"  1741-  Some 
have  called  the  Epistle  aphoristic,  which  is  a  misleading  term  if  meant  to  exclude  the  notion 
of  a  definite  plan.  The  idea  seized  upon  by  Oporin  is  certainly  the  leading  one  of  the  Epistle. 
So  too  Liicke — "As  the  groimd  and  root  of  all  Christian  fellowship  is  the  fellowship  which 
each  has  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  faith  and  love,  so  this  latter  necessarily  unfolds  and 
exhibits  itself  in  that  former." 

3  Huther,  who,  in  his  first  edition,  in  Meyer's  Commentary,  adopted  an  analysis  on  this 
plan  (at  De  Wette's  suggestion),  abandoned  it  in  his  second  edition. 


604  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

words  of  St.  John — words  expressive  of  some  inexhaustible 
and  abstract  idea — might  be  compared  to  stones  thrown  into 
a  lake,  which  raise  around  them  a  far-spreading  concentric 
ripple;  but  of  this  Epistle  it  would  be  even  truer  to  say  that 
word  after  word  exercises  its  influence  over  the  surface,  and 
that  the  innumerable  ripples  which  they  create  overflow  and 
are  influenced  by  each  other,  so  that  the  concentric  rings  of 
thought  are  broken  and  interlaced.^  Hence  it  is  probable 
that  no  analysis  will  be  accepted  by  any  careful  student  as 
final  or  unobjectionable  in  all  its  details.  Let  each  perform 
the  task  as  he  thinks  best;  but  for  myself  I  can  find  no  analysis 
so  helpful  and  thorough  as  that  which  hag  been  indicated  by 
one  of  the  latest,*  and  by  far  the  profoundest,  expositor  of  the 
epistle,  Eric  Haupt.'"'  In  giving  it,  however,  I  must  remind 
the  reader  that  we  do  not  pretend  to  imply  that  St.  John,  in 
writing  the  Epistle,  had  any  such  scheme  definitely  before 
him,  but  only  that,  in  the  development  of  the  great  central 
thoughts  which  he  desired  to  impress  upon  his  readers,  one 
general  object  dominated  through  all  the  separate  passages, 
and  coloured  the  particular  expressions. 

Introduction,  i.  i — 4. 

A.  The  main  theme — Eternal  Life  manifested  by  the  Word. 

B.  Certain  assurance  of  this  as  an  irrefragable  truth; — the  ob- 

ject of  setting  it  forth  being  that  it  is  the  ground  and 
root  of  Christian  fellowship  with  God  and  w^ith  one 
another. 

A.     Eternal  Life,  i.  5 — v.  5. 

I.  The  evidence  that  it  has  been  communicated  to  us  by  the 
Word  is  Walking  in  the  Lig/it^  which  must  show  itself — 


'  I  find  that  Huther  lias  expressed  exactly  the  same  thought  under  a  completely  different 
image.  He  says  that  in  St.  John's  style  "  the  leading  thought  is  like  a*-keynote,  which  he 
strikes  and  causes  to  sound  through  the  derivative  thoughts  until  a  new  key-note  is  struck  that 
leads  lo  a  new  key."  ^ 

2  Generally  speaking,  throughout  this  and  my  former  books  on  the  New  Testament,  I  have, 
I  trust,  shown  that  my  line  of  thought  is  always  independent ;  that  I  have  tried  in  each  instance 
jo  think  and  to  judge  for  myself,  tiullius  addictus  jurare  in  -verba  inagistri.  It  is  right, 
however,  to  say  that  in  the  exegesis  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John  I  have  been  guided  to""  an 
unusual  extent  by  the  admirable  treatise  of  Haupt.  I  have  not  always  agreed  with  him.  At 
times  he  seems  to  me  to  be  over-subtle.  I  do  not  always  accept  his  views  of  scholarship.  Kut 
though  I  have  also  studied  the  views  of  many  other  editors— Huther,  Dusterdieck.  Kbiard, 
lir.-iune,  Alfjrd,  Wordsworth,  Reuss,  etc.— I  have  not  found  in  any  one  f)f  them  the  depth  and 
insight  of  this  litde-known  writer.  I  have,  therefore,  been  sj>cciallv  indebted  to  him,  and  de- 
sire thus  generally  to  express  my  obligation.  From  Reuss  I  have  gained  scarcely  any  help. 
His  treatment  of  the  Johannme  writings  in  his  Thhdo^c  Joka unique  ^VL^mf,  to  be  decidedly 
poor,  and  far  inferior  to  his  treatment  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Nor  have  I  learnt  much 
from  the  wordy  obscurity  of  IJraune. 


OBJECT  OF  THE   FIRST  EPISTLE   OF  ST.   JOHN.        605 

1.  Towards  God — in  the  form  of  sinlessness  (i.  6 — ii.  2.) 

a  Sinlessness  is  effected   positively  by  redemption 

through  Christ's  blood  (i.  5 — 7). 
^  Negatively,  by  forgiveness  of  past  sin  (i.  8 — 10). 
7  Hortative  recapitulation  (ii.  i,  2). 

2.  Towards  the  brethren — as  brotherly  love  (ii.  3 — 13). 

a  Keeping  God's   commandments   is  union   with 

God  (ii.  3—5). 
P  Love  as  the  new  commandment  (ii.  6 — 11). 
y  Hortative  encouragement  (ii.  12 — 14). 

3.  By  utter  severance  from  the  world. 

a  No  fellowship  with  the  world  or  with  Antichrist 

(ii.  15—19). 
/3  Security  by  means  of  the  unction  from  the  Holy 

One  (ii.  20 — 26). 
y  Recapitulation  (27). 

n.   If  we  possess  Eternal  Life  we  have  confidence,  because 
we  have  been  born  of  God  (ii.  28 — v.  5). 

1.  The  evidence  of  this  sonship  is  seen  in  action  (iii.). 

a  Towards  God  it  is  evidenced  by  doing  righteous- 
ness (iii.  I — 10). 
P  Towards  the  brethren,  by  love  (iii.  11 — 18). 
y  Recapitulation  (iii.  19 — 23). 

2.  The  source  of  this  sonship  is  the  reception  of  the  Spirit 

of  God. 

a    The  confession  of   Christ   through   the    Spirit 

saves  us  from  false  Spirits  (iv.  i — 6). 
[i  Human  love  is  a  reflection  of  the  Divine,  and  is 

derived  from  the  Spirit  (iv.  7 — 12). 
y  Recapitulation  (iv.  14 — 16). 
Retrospective  conclusions: — when  the  Divine  birth  is  thus 
manifested  in  action  (iii.),  which  may  be  traced  back  to  the 
Spirit,  (iv.  i — 6),  then  we  have  the  perfect  confidence  of  son- 
ship,  and  may  stand  unabashed  in  the  Day  of  Judgment  (iv. 
17,  18). 

HL   Final  illustrations. 

A.  Love  and  Faith. 

a  The  Idea  of  Love  embraces  love  both  to  God  and  to  the 

brethren  (iv.  19 — 21). 
/3  The  Idea  of  Faith  involves  love  both  to  God  and  to  the 

brethren  (v.  i — 3). 
y  And  also  involves  Victory  over  the  world  (v.  4,  5). 


6o6  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

B.  Assurance  that  the  Word  is  the  Giver  of   Eternal 

Life. 
i.   Because  it  is  founded  on  the  certain  witness  of  God  (v. 

6-9). 
ii.  And  this  witness  is  echoed  from  within  (v.  lo — 12). 

C.  Conclusion. 

a  The  substance  of  Eternal  Life,  as  consisting  of  faith  in 
Christ,  and  confidence,  and  intercessory  love  (v.  13 

-17). 
p  The  signatures  of  the  child  of  God  (v.  18 — 20)  in  the 

threefold  knowledge  that  he  is  sinless,  that  he  is  from 

God,  that  he  is  in  Christ. 
y  Emphatic  conclusion,  showing  the  practical  aim  of  the 

Epistle.^ 

I  have  inserted  this  formal  analysis  of  the  Epistle  into  the 
text,  and  not  placed  it  in  a  note,  because  of  its  great  import- 
ance, and  because  it  illustrates  to  no  small  extent  the  charac- 
teristics of  St.  John's  method,  and  the  colouring  of  his 
thoughts.  Some  may  be  inclined  to  look  on  it  with  suspicion, 
from  the  very  fact  of  its  prevailing  triplicity;  and  no  doubt 
this  might  be  justly  regarded  as  unfavourable  to  its  reception 
if  we  pretended  to  imply  that  St.  John  drew  up  beforehand 
any  outline  of  this  definite  division.  Had  he  done  so,  it  would 
at  once  have  stamped  his  Epistle  with  formalism  of  statement 
and  want  of  spontaneity.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  tri- 
plicity is  entirely  unintentional.  It  is  so  little  insisted  on, 
that  some  of  the  sections,  and  especially  the  minor  divisions 
which  I  have  not  here  pointed  out,  fall  into  pairs.  The  de- 
tection of  this  involuntary  triplicity  and  duality  of  statement 
does  not  arise  from  any  a  priori  determinaton  to  find  it,  but 
results  naturally  from  careful  study  of  the  Epistle  step  by  step. 
The  very  same  peculiarity  is  observable  in  the  Gospel.  Any 
one  who  analyses  it  sees  at  once  that  there  is  scarcely  one, 
either  of  its  main  or  its  minor  divisions,  which  does  not  fall 
into  double  or  triple  parts.  This  was  pointed  out  by  Luthardt, 
and  may  be  seen  by  a  glance  at  Canon  Westcott's  analysis  of 
the  Gospel,  though  he  does  not  expressly  allude  to  it.  As  to 
the  Epistle,  "the  order  and  symmetry  which  pervade  all,  down 
to  the  minutest  details,  only  show  how  clearly  and  sharply  the 


"It  would  only  confuse  the  reader  to  give  the  analyses  of  Hofmann,  Ebrard,  Huther,  etc. 
Ewald  adopts  three  divisions,  i.  i-ii.  17  ;  ii.  i8-iv.  6  ;  iv.  7-v.  21.  Diisterdieck,  closely  fol- 
lowed by  Alford,  who  gives  his  analysis  at  length,  divides  as  follows— Exordium,  i.  1-4  :  two 
main  sections,  i.  5-ii.  28  ;  ii.  29-v.  5  ;  a  double  conclusion  v.  6-13,  14-21. 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  ST.   JOHN.      60/ 

Apostle  was  accustomed  to  think,  and  that,  in  consequence 
of  an  inherent  sense  of  order,  his  thoughts  grouped  themselves 
with  facility  in  a  definite  way," 


The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  may  be  regarded  as  beyond 
all  suspicion.  It  was  known  to  and  quoted  by  Papias  (a.d, 
140).'  There  are  unmistakable  allusions  to  it  in  the  Epistle 
to  Diognetus  (a.d.  117),  in  the  Epistle  of  the  Churches  of 
Lyons  and  Vienne  (a.d.  117),  and  in  Polycarp's  letter  to  the 
Philippians.*  It  was  often  quoted  by  Irenaeus.^  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  testimony  of  the  Muratorian  fragment 
(circ.  A.D.  170)  is  in  its  favour."  It  is  translated  in  the  Pe- 
shito;  is  constantly  quoted  by  the  P'athers  of  the  third  cen- 
tury; is  ranked  among  the  Homologoumena  by  Eusebius,' and 
is  said  by  St.  Jerome  to  have  been  accepted  by  all  true  Church- 
men.^ This  external  evidence  combines  so  overwhelmingly 
with  the  internal,  that  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  from  the 
days  of  Marcion'  (about  a.d.  140)  and  the  Alogi"  down  to  the 
days  of  Joseph  Scaliger,  the  Epistle  has  been  received  with 
unquestioning  reverence."  The  notion  that  it  shows  signs  of 
senility  is  the  superficial  conclusion  of  careless  and  prejudiced 
readers.  The  endeavour  of  Baur  to  find  Montanism  in  the 
Epistle,  and  that  of  Hilgenfeld  to  prove  that  it  is  a  forgery  of 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  need  be  no  further  debated, 
because  they  have  found  scarcely  any  followers.  And  even 
Hilgenfeld  spoke  of  the  writer  as  "a  great  independent 
thinker,"  and  called  his  Epistle,  not  as  Baur  had  done,  a 
"weak  imitation"  of  the  Gospel,  but  a  "splendid  type"  of  it.'" 
The  notion  that  such  Epistles  as  this,  and  the  Epistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossians  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles  could 
have  been  second-century  forgeries  is  refuted  by  the  entire 
literature  of  that  century,  whether  authentic,  or  anonymous, 

1  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  39,  Kexprjrai  .  .  .  fiapTupiai.<;  otto  T17?  'lojdwov  Trporepa?  eTrioroAij?, 

^  Polyc.  ad  Philipp.  7.     This  quotation  constitutes  a  strong  proof  of  genuineness. 

3  Kuseb.  H.  E.  v.  8  ;  Iren.  c.  Haer.  iii.  16,  5,  7. 

■•  See  infra.  5  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  24,  25. 

*  Jer.  De  Virr.  Illusir,  9.  It  is  quoted  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  [Strom,  ii,  66;  iii.  32, 
etc.),  Tertullian  [c.  Marc.  v.  16;  c.  Prax.  i^,  etc.),  ('yprian  (/v>.  2S,  etc.),  and  pscudo- 
Chrysostom  {in  Matt.  xxi.  23)  says,  an-arre?  efvat  'Icudii^ov  <rufjL<{xLi'uJi  aire(f>i^yavTo, 

''  Marcion  either  did  not  know  or  rejected  the  writings  of  St.  John. 

8  To-xo-  5e  to-i  rd?  'En-aroAa?,  (rvvaSovai.  yap  aurat  to*  EuayyeXco*  Acal  rfj  'Atto/coAui/zci  (Kpi- 
phan.  c.  Haer.  li.  34). 

"  Tlie  isolated  exception  of  Cosmas  Indicopleiistcs  in  the  sixth  century  is  hardly  worth 
mentioning,  for  his  remark  is  evidently  made  in  sjreat  ignorance  of  the  subject.  He  foolishly 
observes  that  "  the  majority"  regarded  the  Catholic  F3pistles  as  not  being  the  wTitings  of  the 
Apostles  ;  aAA'  kripiav  Tivmv  Ttpea^vTepufV  a<f)e\((TT€pu}v. 

'•^  Hilgenfeld,  Diis  Ez'un^.  und  die  liriefe  Jo/tannin,  1849. 


608  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

or  pseudonN'mous.  That  literature  is  of  a  character  incom- 
parably more  feeble,  and  is  animated  by  a  spirit  incomparably 
less  divine. 

Some  have  preferred  to  regard  this  Epistle  as  a  theological 
treatise,  or  a  religious  homily;  but  the  form  which  it  assumes, 
and  the  direct  addresses  with  which  it  abounds,  show  that  it 
really  was  intended  as  an  encyclical  letter,  addressed  neither 
"to  Parthians"  nor  "to  Virgins,"^  but  to  the  Churches  of 
Asia,  with  which  the  Apostle  was  most  familiar.  The  conclu- 
sions which  have  here  been  indicated  may  be  considered  cer- 
tain;— namely,  that  it  was  written  towards  the  close  of  the 
first  century;  and — which  is  a  deeply  interesting  and  sugges- 
tive circumstance — that  it  was,  in  some  instances,  at  least,  ac- 
companied by  copies  of  the  Gospel,  to  wiiich  it  is  closely 
related  in  its  tone  of  thought,  and  to  which  it  served  as  a 
practical  commentary.^ 


CHAPTER    XXXV. 

THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    ST.  JOHN. 

"Ubi  Amor,  ibi  Trinitas." — S.  Aug. 

"  Lociiuirus  est  inulta,  et  prope  oninia  de  caritate." — S.  Aug.  Rxpos.  in  Ep.  yohann.' 
"The  main  substance  of  this  Epistle  relates  to  love."' — Luther. 

"  Put  off  thy  shoes  from  off  thj'  feet,  for  ihe  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground." 
— Ex.  iii.  5. 

SECTION   I. 

*  ETERNAL    LIFE. 

"That  which  was  from  tlie  beginning,  which  we  have  heard,  which  we  have 
seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  gazed  upon,  and  our  hands  handled, =*  concerning 
the  Word  of  Life  ;  and  the  Life  was  manifested,*  and  we  have  seen  it,  and  are 
witnessing  and  announcing  to  you  ^  that  Life — even  that  Eternal  Life  which  was 
with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  to  us.  That  which  we  have  seen  and  have 
heard  we  announce  to  you  also,  that  ye  also  may  have  communion  with  us; 
and  indeed  our  communion  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ. ' 
And  these  things  we  write,'  that  your  joy  may  be  fulfilled  "  (i.  1—4). 

'  Thus  ypa.^ta  occurs  seven  times,  eypai^a  six  times,  vtilv,  vfteU,  etc.,  thirty-si.x  times,  tsk- 
vio,  waifii'a  six  times,  iyarrrjToc  six  times,  etc.  The  unconstrained  style,  the  hortatory  tendency, 
the  informal  transitir)ns,  all  point  to  its  epistolary  character. 

-  This  is  the  view  of  Michaelis,  Augusti,  Hug,  I'hiersch,  Ebrard,  Haupt,  etc. 

3  Luke  xxiv.  39  :  i//>)Aa(^^(TaTe  /u.e  Ka\  ISere.  The  word  would  be  the  strongest  possible  re- 
futation of  Dncetic  error.  In  Ignat.  ati/.  Stnyrn.  4,  5,  our  Lord  says  to  P<  ter  after  His  Re- 
surrection, "  Take,  handle  hie,  and  sec  that  I  am  not  a  bodiless  spirit "'  (Sai/u.drtoi'  ao-to/u.aToi')  ; 
"and  immediately  they  took  hold  of  Him  and  believed,  convinced  by  His  flesh  and  His 
Spirit." 

^  Hy  "the  life"  is  here  meant  the  Absolute  Life,  jj  avTO^co^,  17  Trrjya^ovo-a  to  ^i]v  (Schol., 
John  i.  4). 

'  The  reading  of  X  is  #cai  a.tta.-^yiKKoiLtv  koli  vfilv. 

*  .'  !^V  '^°'y  •''P'''''  '■'^  ""'.  mentioned,  because  He  is  /«  us.  rather  than  7t'zV/«  us  (2  Cor.  xii.  13). 

''  "There  arc  two  species  of  testimony— announcement  and  writing.  Announcement  lays 
the  foundation  :   writing  builds  the  superstructure"  (15engel). 


THE    FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  609 

We  have  here  the  introductory  theme  of  the  whole  Epistle. 
It  should  be  compared  with  the  golden  prologue  of  the  Gos- 
pel to  which  it  is  so  closely  analogous,  and  the  knowledge  of 
which  it  assumes.'  Though  St.  John  seems  to  be  labouring 
with  the  desire  to  express  a  truth  too  great  for  the  power  of 
his  language  to  utter,  the  clause,  so  far  from  being,  as  Calvin 
said,  "abrupt  and  confused,"  is  to  the  highest  degree  preg- 
nant with  clear  and  majestic  thought.  It  compresses  into  a 
few  lines  a  world  of  meaning,  while  at  the  same  time  it  is 
steeped  in  the  deep  emotion 'of  the  writer. 

What  he  has  to  announce — for  he  only  uses  the  plural  as 
one  of  the  Apostolic  witnesses — is  not  the  Word,  but  some- 
thing respecting  Him — namely,  that  He  is  the  source  from 
which  all  life  streams.  In  hearing  and  seeing  Him,  the  Apos- 
tles had  heard  and  seen  this  inward  significance  of  His  Person 
and  of  His  acts  by  the  immediate  perceptions  of  sense;  and 
in  gazing  on  and  handling  Him,  as  they  all  did,  and  Thomas 
especially,  after  His  resurrection,  they  had  learnt,  by  yet  fuller 
investigation,  that  He  is  indeed  the  Conqueror  of  Death  and 
the  Source  of  Life.  And  this  I>ife  of  His  was  "from  the  begin- 
ning," so  that  the  announcement  of  it  is  as  though  he  were 
now  inspired  to  write  a  new  Book  of  Genesis,  but  one  which 
dated  backwards  to  a  yet  earlier — nay,  to  an  absolute  eternity. 
Thus  the  "from  the  beginning"  of  the  last  book  of  the  Bible 
repeats,  but  in  even  deeper  tones,  the  "in  the  beginning"  of 
the  first  book.  The  one  speaks  of  the  Incarnation,  the  other 
testifies  to  the  Eternity,  of  Him  by  whom  the  worlds  were 
made. 

The  prooem  of  the  Gospel  declared  that  "the  Word  be- 
came flesh,"  because  in  the  Gospel  St.  John  is  treating  of 

1  John  i.  i.  ^  1  John  i.  i,  2. 

'Ei*  apxfj  ?iv  6  AoYO?  Koi  6  Aoyos  V  ""POS  o  V  «"■*  apXV^  .  .  .   [r)  ^wj?)  tjtis  ^f  Jrpbs 

TOJ'  ©eov.  Toi'  IlaTipa. 

Ver.  4. 

iu  auTtp  ^ujT)  ?iv  Koi  ij  ^wtj  ^v  to  (jlxis  ruv  rrepl  tov  Xoyov  ttj?  ^wijs  .   .   ■   r]  fw»}  ii}>a- 

avOpiiiTToiv,  Koi  TO  (/)ws  iv  rj]  (TKoria  (^aifet.  veputd-q  .   .  .   koi  ec^ai-epto^rj  rjfj.iv. 

Ver.  14. 
KoX  iOeaaajxeSa  ttji/  So^av  avTOv.  6  eOeaadneOa. 

Others  of  the  ideas  found  in  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel  occur  elsewhere  in  the  Epistle. 
Thus  compare — 

i.    I,  "The  Word  was  God."  v.  ■20,  "This  is  the  true  God." 

i.    9,  ''There  was  the  true  light."  ii.    8,  "The  true  light  already  shineth." 

i.  12,  -'To  become  children  of  God."  iii.    i,  "That  we  should  be  called  children 

of  God." 
i.  13,  "Born  ....  of  God."  v.     i.  "  Hegotten  of  God." 

i.  14.  "The  Word  became  flesh."  iv.    2,  "  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh." 

i.  18,  "No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  iv.  12,   "  No  man  hath  beheld  God  at  any 

time." 
This  opening  clau.se  of  the  Epistle  resembles  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  ab- 
sence of  name  and  greeting,  but  the  majestic  beginning  of  that  Epistle  is  more  rhetorical  and 
less  cnioiiunal. 

39 


6lO  THE   EAKLV    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Christ's  person;  but  in  the  Epistle  he  says,  "the  Life  was 
manifested,"  because  he  is  about  to  deal,  not  directly  with 
His  Person,  but  with  the  influence  which  flowed  from  it — 
namely,  life.  And  the  quality  of  that  life  is  that  it  is  eternal, 
i.e.,  spiritual,  supratemporal,  Divine,  seeing  that  (^n?)  it 
stands  in  immediate  relation  to  (Trpo?)  the  Father,  and  was  only 
manifested  to  man,  in  its  priority  and  fulness,  when  Christ 
appeared.  This  was  the  Life  which  the  Apostles  had  seen, 
to  which  they  bore  witness  as  true,  which  they  were  communi- 
cating to  the  world,  and  of  which  the  assurance  could  be 
derived  from  their  testimony.  And  the  aim  of  the  announce- 
ment is  to  establish  a  fellowship  between  the  witnesses  and 
those  who  received  their  witness;  for  indeed  this  fellowship 
is,  in  reality,  a  fellowship  with  God  and  with  Christ.  If  it  be 
asked  how  it  could  be  St.  John's  object  to  establish  a  fellow- 
ship which  they  possessed  already,  the  simple  answer  is  one 
which  applies  to  all  the  writings  of  the  Apostles.  They  wrote 
to  Christians,  who  were  indeed,  as  Christians,  ideally  perfect, 
but  in  whom  the  ideal  was  as  yet  very  far  from  having  be- 
come the  real.  Ideally  they  were  saints  and  perfect;  in  reality 
they  were  struggling  with  daily  imperfections,  and  had  not  by 
any  means  attained  the  measure  of  the  fulness  of  the  stature  of 
Christ.  They  were,  therefore,  far  from  that  fulness  of  joy 
which  was  their  proper  heritage.^  The  Eternal  Life  which 
they  possessed  was  as  yet  but  in  the  germ. 

"And  this  is  the  message^  which  we  have  heard  from  Him,  and  are  an- 
nouncing to  you,  that  God  is  Light,  and  there  is  not  in  Him  any  darkness  of 
any  kind.  If  we  say  that  we  have  fellowship  with  Him,  and  are  walking  in  the 
darkness,  we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth.  But  if  we  walk  in  the  Light,  as  He  is  in 
the  Light, 3  we  have  fellowship  with  one  another,^  and  the  blood  of  Jesus,  His 
Son,  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  "  ^  (i.  5 — 7). 

Into  those  words,  God  is  Light,  St.  John  compresses  the 
substance  of  his  messao^e,  and  utters  one  of  those  orreat  final 


'  Comp.  John  xv.  11  ;  xvii.  3;  Phil.  ii.  2.  "  Quorum  gaudium  tu  ipse  es.  Et  ipsa  est 
bcata  vita  gaudere  ad  to,  de  te,  propter  te"  (Aug.  Conf.  x.  22).  "  The  peace  of  reconciliation, 
the  blessed  consciousness  of  sonship,  the  happy  growth  in  holiness,  the  bright  prospect  of  fu- 
ture completion  and  glory,  all  these  are  but  details  of  that  which  is  embraced  by  one  word, 
Eternal  Lifs"  (Diistcrdieck).  2  'Ay-yeAta  (not  in.).  A,  B,  K,  L,  etc. 

2  One  of  the  many  passages  in  which  there  is  close  affinity  between  the  thoughts  of  St. 
John  and  St.  Paul  (see  Kph.  iv.  25  ;  v.  8,  9,  11-14).  ^^'^Vcan  only  7</.z//t  in  the  light  (Isa.  ii.  5), 
corning  into  U  out  of  darkness  ;  but  the  essence  and  element  of  God's  Being  zs  in  the  Light 
(^u>$  oiKojc  an pocr iTOv) . 

*  tLtT  (xAA^Awi/  (X,  r..  etc.),  and  not  fxer  avrov  (A),  is  the  better  reading.  "  Christian  fellow- 
ship is  then  only  real  when  it  is  in  fellowship  with  God"  (De  Wette).  "Nisi  in  bonis  amicitia 
esse  non  potest"  (Cic. ). 

"^  Col.  1.  20  ;  Kph.  i.  7  ;  Heb,  ix.  14.  Christ's  Blood,  applied  by  Faith,  becomes  our  Justi- 
fication, and  is  also  the  purifying  medium  of  our  sanctification.  The  verse,  as  Bp.  Words- 
worth points  out,  refutes  many  heresies— ^.^.,  that  of  Cerinthus,  that  Jesus  was  not  the  Christ 
(reading  Xpioroi;)  ;  tliat  of  the  Klnonitcs,  that  He  was  not  the  Son  of  God  ;  that  of  the  Doceta;, 
that  the  Christ  did  not  really  die  ;  that  of  the  Novatians,  who  denied  pardon  to  deadly  sin 
after  baptism  ;  that  of  the  Antinomians,  who  denied  the  necessity  of  moral  obedience. 


THE    FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  6ll 

truths,  which,  since  they  cannot  be  transcended,  mark  the 
close  of  revelation.  It  is  not  introduced  abruptly  or  discon- 
nectedly, but  it  requires  a  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  to  see  its 
force.  There,  too,  and  in  the  same  order,  we  have — First, 
the  Word  (i.  i,),  then  Life  (i.  4),  then  Light  (i.  5);  and  there 
we  see  that  the  Light  is  the  highest  manifestation  of  the  Life 
in  relation  to  men;  so  that  the  epitome  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
epitome  of  t]ie  Life  of  Christ,  as  regards  the  world,  is  this — 
that  the  Light  shineth  in  darkness,  and  the  darkness  compre- 
hended it  not.  But,  when  man  receives  the  Life  as  Light,  he 
also  reflects  it,  and  so  becomes  a  child  of  Light.'  In  these 
words,  therefore,  as  in  "God  is  Love,"  St.  John  sums  up  all 
the  meaning  of  his  Gospel,  although  in  the  Gospel  itself 
neither  of  the  two  expressions  occurs.  Yet  Christ  is  there 
called  Light,  because  He  is  one  with  the  Father,  and  because 
He  manifested  the  Father  as  Light.  "I,"  He  said,  "am  the 
Light  of  the  world.'"' 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  final  revelation  that  God  is 
Light?  The  only  answer  which  we  can  give  is  that,  of  all  ex- 
isting things,  not  one  is  so  pure,  so  abstract,  so  glorious,  so 
beneficent,  so  incapable  of  stain  or  admixture,  as  earthly  light; 
and  earthly  light  is  but  an  analogue  of  the  Light  which  is  im- 
material and  Divine. 

"  Hail,  Holy  Light !  offspring  of  heaven  firstborn, 
Or  of  the  Eternal  co-eternal  beam. 
May  I  express  thee  unblamed?  since  God  is  Light, 
And  never  but  in  unapproached  Light 
Dwelt  from  eternity  :  dwelt  then  in  thee, 
Bright  effluence  of  bright  essence  uncreate; 
Or,  hear'st  thou  rather,  pure  ethereal  stream, 
Whose  fountain  who  shall  tell?     Before  the  sun, 
Ijefore  the  heavens,  thou  wast." 

St.  John,  as  is  usual  with  him,  follows  the  positive  state- 
ment by  a  negative  one,  which  strengthens  and  adds  to  it — 
"in  Him  is  no  darkness  whatever."  The  words  furnished  an 
answer,  if  such  were  needed,  to  Manichean  dreams;  and  they 
introduce  the  truth  that  it  must  be  the  duty  of  the  Christian 
TO  WALK  IN  Light,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  to  live  in 
God.  We  are  surrounded  with  elements  of  darkness;  but  we 
are  not  to  love  it,  nor  to  love  the  world,  which  is  the  sphere 
of  its  extension;  we  are  to  pass  from  it,  by  heart-repentance, 
into  the  region  of  Light,  which  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  If 
we  have  not  done  so,  and  yet  profess  fellowship  with  God, 
our  life  is  a  lie.  In  that  case  "we  lie;"  and  to  this  positive 
he   adds   the   negative,    "and  we  do  not  the  truth."     The 

1  John  viii.  12.  ^  John  i.  4;  iii.  19;  viii.  12. 


6l2  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

clause  illustrates  his  manner.  It  is  not  a  mere  antithesis  of 
positive  and  negative,  but  the  addition  of  a  strong  and  par- 
tially new  clause,  after  the  fashion  of  Hebrew  parallelism. 
For  the  word  "truth"  means  something  much  more  than  that 
purely  relative  conception  which  we  ordinarily,  attach  to  the 
word.  We  must  seek  the  meaning  of  it  in  such  expressions 
as  St.  Paul's  "obeying  the  truth,  "^  and  the  words  of  Jesus, 
"I  am  the  Truth.'"'*  It  means  absolute  reality.  ^The  Gnostic 
dreamer — the  professing  Christian  who  talks  about  union  with 
God  and  yet  is  walking  in  darkness,  who  wilfully  deceives 
himself,  who  shrinks  in  hatred  from  the  revealing  light — not 
only  says  that  which  is  false,  but  leads  a  life  which  is  entirely 
false,  and  hollow,  and  unreal — a  life  of  semblance  and  of 
death.  But  if  we  walk  in  the  light,  then  our  fellowship  in 
light  is  perfected,  and  we  are  cleansed  from  all  sin.  In  other 
words,  we  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  Jesus.  His  blood 
has  won  our  justification — the  forgiveness  of  our  actual  sins; 
His  blood — that  is,  "His  power  of  life  working  its  effects  and 
ruling  within  us" — is  our  sanctification  from  all  sin.  And  to 
be  forgiven,  and  cleansed,  is  to  have  fellowship  with  one  an- 
other and  with  God. 

"  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  mislead  ourselves,  and  the  Truth  is  not 
in  US.3  If  we  confess  our  sins,-*  faithful^  is  He  and  Righteous,  that  He  should 
forgive  us  our  sins,  and  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness."^  If  we  say  that  we 
have  not  sinned,  we  make  Him  a  liar,  and  His  Word  is  not  in  us  "  (i.  8 — lo). 

The  denial  of  sin,  the  assertion  of  our  independence  and 
perfection,  is  a  radical  abandonment  of  honesty.  There  can 
be  no  reality,  and,  therefore,  nothing  akin  to  the  Divine,"  in 
the  man  who  makes  such  an  assertion,  whether  it  be  dictated 
by  haughty  self-sufficiency  as  to  our  own  virtues,  or  by  Anti- 
nomian  denial  that  sin  is  exceeding  sinful.  But  with  consci- 
ousness of  sfn  begins  the  hope  and  possibility  of  amendment. 
When  sin   is  confessed  with  real  contrition  to   God,  and,  if 

»  Rom.  li.  8  ;  2  Thess.  i.  8.  2  John  xiv.  6. 

8  The  connexion  is  that  we  nil  need  to  be  thus  cleansed  by  the  Blood  of  Christ  (Ircn.  c. 
Hner.  i.,  vi.  20).  It  is  at  least  doubtful  whether  there  is  any  special  ^\\n%\o\\  to  Gnostic  An- 
tinomian  Perfectionists. 

*  Of  course  St.  John  means  confession  springing  from  true  contrition  (James  v.  16). 
6  True  to  His  Nature  and  Promise  (i  Cor.  i.  9  ;  x.  13  :   1  Thess.  v.  24,  etc.). 

•  "  In  the  background  lie  all  the  details  of  the  Redemption"  (Alford).  ''All  sin,  original 
and  actual"  (I'engei).  *•  Si  te  confcssus  fuerls  peccatoruni  est  in  te  Veritas,  nam  ipsa  Veritas 
lux  est.  Nondum  perfecte  spleniluit  vita  tua,  quia  insunt  peccata  :  sed  tnmen  jam  illuminari 
cacpisti  quia  inest  confcssio"  (Aug.). 

''  In  the  tract  Sanhedrin  (f,64,  a),  there  is  a  story  that  for  three  days  the  I.sraelites  wrestled 
with  the  Kyil  Impulse  [Jetscr-hnra],  and  said  that  God  had  permitted  this  Evil  Impulse, 
that  men  might  gain  a  reward  by  overcoming  it.  Thereupon  a  letter  dropped  from  heaven,  on 
which  was  the  word  "Truth."  Rabbi  Chanina  said,  "  From  this  wc  may  see  that  th'e  Seal 
0/  the  Holy  One  is  Truth." 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  613 

needful,  to  men,  then — because  God  is  God,  and  is,  therefore, 
faithful  to-  His  own  nature,  and  because,  as  a  Righteous 
Judge,  He  judges  uprightly — it  is  the  very  object  of  His  right- 
eousness that  He  should  remit  our  past  sins,'  and  renew  our 
whole  nature.  A  denial  on  our  part  of  past  sin  gives  the  lie 
to  all  His  revelation,  and  proves  that  His  Word  is  not  in  us. 

Having  thus  illustrated  the  truth  that  to  have  fellowship 
with  God  is  to  walk  in  the  Light,  and  that  this  involves  our 
deliverance,  alike  from  t\\Q  principle  oi  sin  by  redemption,  and 
from  the  guilt  of  sin  by  forgiveness,  he  sums  up  in  these 
words: — 

"  My  little  children,-  these  things  I  write  to  you  that  ye  may  not  sin :  and  if 
any  one  have  sinned,^  we  have  an  Advocate ^  to  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ,  as 
Righteous.  And  He  is  a  propitiation  for  our  sins,  but  not  for  ours  alone,  but 
also  for  the  whole  world  "  ^  (ii.  i,  2). 

The  personal  address,  "my  little  children,"  shows  the 
warmth  and  earnestness  of  this  recapitulation.  The  aim  of 
all  that  he  has  said  is  that  the  Christian  should  not  sin;  but  if 
that  deliverance  be  impossible  in  its  ideal  fulness,  if  we  do 
fall  into  sins  of  infirmity,  still,  even  then — if  only  we  are  on 
our  guard  that  such  sins  never  so  master  and  possess  our  lives 
that  we  walk  in  darkness — we  need  not  despair.^  The  best  of 
all  is  not  to  sin;  but  if  we  cannot  attain  to  this,  there  is  a  pro- 
pitiation for  sin,  by  which — an  Advocate  for  us  to  the  Father, 
by  whom — we  may  gain  the  blessedness  of  the  unrighteous- 


1  'iva  acf>ij  k.t.\.  "  In  this  one  particle  (iva)  lies  the  most  comprehensive  and  the  highest 
witness  of  (iod's  love  that  it  is  possible  to  conceive"  (Haupt,  p.  50). 

'■^  Tradition  has  also  preserved  this  expression  as  a  favourite  one  of  St.  John  in  his  old  age. 

3  eav  Tt?  ajxapTr).     Si  qu'ni /ecca7/erii  (Vulg.). 

*  The  word  is  used  in  this  sense  in  the  letter  of  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne  CEuseb. 
//.  Ji.  V.  i),  where  a  young  Christian — Vettius  Epagathus — after  begging  to  be  heard  in  de- 
fence of  the  martyrs,  himself  received  the  martyr's  crown — TrapaxATjTos  XpLo-Tiavibu  xPVt*-'^' 
Tt<ras,  exiav  6e  rbv  YlapaKXriTov  ev  eawTo) — "  being  called  the  Advocate  of  the  Christians,  but 
having  the  Advocate  in  himself."  On  this  word  Canon  Westcott  (on  St.  John  xiv.  16)  has  one 
of  those  exhaustive  notes,  which  are  so  valuable  as  tending  to  a  final  settlement  of  uncertain 
questions.  The  word  is  only  found  in  the  New  Testament  here,  and  in  John  xiv.  16,  26  :  xv. 
26  ;  xvi.  7,  where  it  is  rendered  Comforter.  The  double  rendering  dates  from  Wiclif,  followed 
by  Tyndale  and  other  versions,  except  that  the  Rhemish,  following  the  Vulgate,  uses  Paraclete 
in  the  Gospel  (Luther  has  in  the  Gospel  "Troster,"  and  here  "  Fiirsprecher  ").  The  Latin 
Fathers  use  the  words  Paracletus,  A(h>ocatus.  Consolator  ;  and  Tertuliian  (once),  Rxora- 
tor.  The  English  word  means  not  *' Comforter"  in  the  modern  sense,  but  "  Strengthener." 
("  Comfort  is  that  by  which  in  the  midst  of  all  our  sorrows  we  are  comjfof-tati — i.e.,  strength- 
ened," Up.  Andrewes.)  The  form  of  the  word  is  passive  ;  in  Classical  Greek  it  mems  Advo- 
cate. It  is  used  in  this  sense  by  Philo  and  the  Rabbis  and  early  Christian  writers.  The 
meaning  in  this  passage  is  clear,  and  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  sense  "Consoler"  by  the 
Greek  Fathers  seems  only  to  be  a  secondary  application  (Wesctcott,  /.  6-.).  It  was  necessary 
for  .St.  John  to  dwell  on  the  truth  that  Christ  was  our  only  Advocate  in  churches  given  to 
Angel  worship  (Col.  ii.  18  ;   i  Tim.  ii.  5). 

^  "Thou,  too,  art  a  part  of  the  whole  world  :  so  that  thine  heart  cannot  deceive  itself,  and 
think  the  Lord  died  for  Peter  and  Paul,  but  not  for  me"  (Luther). 

6  "  Sed  forte  surrepit  de  vita  huniana  peccatum.  Quid  ergo  fiet?  Jam  desperatio  erit? 
Audi  : — si  quis,  inquit  peccaverit,"  etc.  (.Aug.). 


6l4  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

ness  forsjiven,  of  the  sin  covered.  That  Advocate^  is  right- 
eous in  His  nature  and  a  propitiation  by  His  office,  so  that, 
in  and  through  Him,  we  can  be  acceptable  to  God.^  The 
word  "a  propitiation"  {hilasmos)  is  pecuHar  to  St.  John,  oc- 
curring only  here  and  at  iv.  lo.  It  is  therefore  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  that  we  must  look  for  its  meaning,  and  there  it  is  used 
as  the  translation  of  Kipput'im^  "the  Day  of  Atonement,"^ 
just  as  the  corresponding  verb  to  "propitiate,"  or  "make  a 
propitiation  for,*  is  the  standing  version  of  kipper.  It  is 
therefore  a  sacrificial  metaphor,  and  points  to  the  same  series 
of  thoughts  which  we  have  already  examined  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  The  word  itself  stands  in  close  relation  to  the 
word  hilasterion,^  or  mercy-seat,  which — sprinkled  with  the 
blood  of  atonement,  and  dimly  seen  in  the  darkness  through 
the  clouds  of  incense — was  a  type  of  the  means  whereby  man 
may  stand  redeemed  and  accepted  in  the  presence  of  God. 
The  emblem  and  the  expression  belonged  to  the  Jewish  ritual; 
but,  as  St.  John  here  adds,  Christ's  atonement  w^as  not  only 
for  Jews,  not  only  for  believers,  but  for  the  whole  world. 
"Wide  as  was  the  sin,  so  wide  was  the  propitiation." 

With  the  third  verse  of  the  second  chapter,  begins  a  second 
section  in  illustration  of  the  fundamental  theme — the  77ianner, 
namely,  whereby  "walking  in  the  light,"  as  a  proof  that  we 
have  eternal  life,  is  evidenced.  It  is  evidenced,  as  we  have 
hitherto  seen,  by  sinlessness — that  is,  by  forgiveness  from  the 
past  guilt  of  sin  (i.  8 — lo),  and  deliverance  from  its  present, 
power  (i.  5 — 7).  But  this  is  a  proof  that  we  are  walking  in 
the  light  with  reference  to  God.  The  Apostle  now  proceeds 
lo  illustrate  how  such  a  walk  is  evidenced  towards  men,  and 
this  occupies  the  section  ii.  3 — 14.  In  the  first  paragraph  of 
this  section  he  tells  us  that  it  is  thus  evidenced  by  keeping 
(iod's  commandments  (3 — 5);  in  the  second,  he  proceeds  to 
define  all  God's  commandments  as  being  summed  up  essen- 
tially in  one,  namely  in  walking  as  Christ  walked,  which  (as 
the  whole  accompanying  Gospel  would  have  already  m.ade 
clear  to  his  readers)  was  to  walk  in  love,  since  love  is  the  epi- 


'  Advocate  (as  we  have  seen),  not  Comforter,  is  perhaps  always  the  right  renderins  af  Ha- 

riKkyyio^.   The  word  has  been  adopted  by  the  Talmudists  by  simple  transliteration  (tt'^VpIS), 

nd  only  in  ////x  sense.    This  is  the  only  passage  in  which  the  title  is  directly  given  to  tlie  Son  ; 

•It  It  is  indirectly  given    to   Him   in   John  xiv.  i6,  ''I  will  send  von  rt;wM<?r  Comforter." 

"V  If-ru      '''u'"  generally  regards  and  speaks  of  the  Paraclete  as  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

The  righteousness  of  Christ  stands  on  our  side,  for  God's  righteousness  is  in  Jesus 
Christ  ours"  (Luther).  '  C^-ES.  •»  iAao-^o-^ai. 

»  Rom.  iil    2-  (sec  A//.-  and  n\>rk  of. St.  rnu'l.  ii.  209),  and  see  suf>rn  on  Heb.  ix.  5. 


THE    FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  615 

tome  of  this  life."  This  section,  then,  is  an  illustration  of  our 
"fellowship  with  one  another,"  as  the  last  was  of  our  "fellow- 
ship with  the  Father,  and  the  Son  Jesus  Christ;"  and  thus  the 
two  together  are  meant,  directly  and  consecutively,  to  pro- 
mote the  object  which  he  has  already  placed  in  the  forefront 
of  his  Epistle — union  with  one  another  and  with  God.' 

And  since  critics  have  ventured  to  talk  so  superficially  and 
irreverently  of  St.  John's  tautology  and  senility,  and  the  loose, 
inconsequential  structure  of  his  Epistle,  as  though  it  were  (as 
Caligula  said  of  the  style  of  Seneca)^  a  mere  "rope  of  sand,"  it 
may  be  well  to  set  visibly  before  the  reader  a  proof  of  the  ex- 
treme coherence  and  symmetry  which  mark  its  structure.  It 
may  serve  to  show  that  when  these  rude  critics  fancied  that 
they  "understood  his  ignorance,"  they  were,  as  critics  so  often 
are,  merely  "ignorant  of  his  understanding."  If  the  reader 
will  open  his  Bible  and  refer  to  the  paragraphs  i.  5 — 10  and 
ii.  3 — II,  he  will  find  that  they  present  the  close  and  sym- 
metrical parallelism  which  is  indicated  below. 


Chapter  i.  5. 
Subsection  a — 

General  statement. 
Ver.  6  - 
Negative    supposition,   and    two   con- 
demnatory conclusions. 
Ver.  7— 
Positive  supposition,  and  two  declara- 
tions 


Chapter  ii.  3. 
Subsection  a — 

General  statement. 
Ver.  4— 
Negative   supposition,    and   two    con- 
demnatory conclusions. 
Ver.  5- 
Positive  supposition,  and  two  declara- 
tions. 


Subsection  ft —  ;  General  statement,  ver.  6 — 8. 

Three  opposed  sentences,  ver.  8,  9,  10.  ,  Three  opposed  sentences,  ver.  9,  10,  11. 

The  symmetry  is  not  slavishly  artificial,  but  it  is  a  very 
marked  characteristic  of  a  careful  and  meditative  .style. 

"  And  in  this  we  recognise  that  we  have  learnt  to  know  Him,  if  we  keep  His 
commandments.  He  that  saith  I  have  learnt  to  know  Him,  and  keepeth  not 
His  commandments  is  a  liar,  and  in  him  the  Truth  is  not.  But  whosoever 
keepeth  His  Word,  of  very  truth  in  him  the  love  of  God  has  been  perfected. 
By  this  we  learn  to  know  that  we  are  in  Him  "  (li.  3—5). 

"To  know  God"  is  not  merely  to  know  that  He  is.  In  St. 
John's  sense  it  is  to  have/////*knowledge  of  Him,*  that  is,  to 
receive  Him  into  the  heart.  And  t/ius  to  know  Him  is  to 
walk  in  the  light,  which  we  cannot  be  doing  if  we  are  not 
keeping  His  commandments.     Here,  then,  is  a  test  for  us  as 

1  John  xiii.  34,  35.     i  John  iii.  i.  2  Sec  i.  3. 

3  The  shrewd,  though  more  than  half-insane  Emperor,  said  that  Seneca's  style  was  '■^ com- 
itiissio)ies  ?)irrns"  "  mere  display"  .ind  "arena  sine  calce" — "  sand  without  lime." 

*  The  word  erriyvtaa-Li,  however,  so  common  in  St.  Paul  and  in  2  Peter,  is  not  used  by  St. 
John. 


6l6  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

to  whether  we  know  Him  or  not,  a  test  as  to  our  Fellowship 
with  Him.     St.  John  has  already  told  us  (i.  6)  that 

If  we  say  that  -we  have  fellowship  with  Him, 

And  walk  in  darkness, 
(a)  We  lie,  and 
{13}  Do  not  the  truth: 
and  here,  in  closest  parallel,  but  in  stronger  form,  he  tells  us 

He  that  saith  I  have  learnt  to  know  Him, 

And  keepeth  not  His  commandments, 
(a)  He  is  a  liar,  and 
(fS)  The  truth  is  not  in  him. 
But  he  who  keepeth  God's  word — the  words  of  Him  who  was 
the  Word  and  whose  words  are  spirit  and  life' — is  truly 
Christ's  disciple.  That  word,  whether  as  the  personal  Logos 
or  as  His  announcement,  is  essentially  "Love;"  and,  there- 
fore, in  him  who  keeps  God's  word  the  "love  of  God"  has 
been  perfected.  Such  a  man  has  in  himself,  as  the  pervading 
inlluence  of  his  life,  the  love  which  is  in  God, — for  "God  is 
love."'  The  thought  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  expressed 
by  St.  Paul,  in  the  Ephesians,  where,  in  the  only  passage  in 
which  he  bids  us  be  imitators  of  God,^  he  tells  us  to  "walk  in 
love,  even  as  Christ  loved  us."  But  though  the  fundamental 
thought  is  the  same,  it  is  set  forth  by  St.  John  in  a  more  de- 
veloped, a  more  penetrative,  and  a  more  final  manner.  The 
words,  "herein  we  learn  to  know  that  we  are  in  Him,"  are  a 
recapitulation,  but  one  which  adds  to  the  emphasis  with  which 
a  truth  so  important  is  announced,  and  serves  to  perfect  the 
symmetry  between  this  section  and  the  corresponding  one  in 
the  last  chapter. 

In  the  next  paragraph  St.  John  gives  the  central  thought, 
to  which  he  has  been  drawing  nearer  and  nearer,  namely,  that 
the  ideal  unity  of  God's  commandments  is  found  in  brotherly 
love;  and  that  this,  therefore,  is  the  true  manifestation  of 
"walking  in  the  light,"  as  expressed  towards  our  brethren  in 
the  world. 

"  He  that  saith  that  He  abideth  in  Him,  ought  himself  also  to  walk  even  as 
He  walked.  Beloved,  I  write  not  a  new  commandment  to  you,  but  an  old  com- 
mandment which  ye  had  from  the  beginning.  That  old  commandment  is  the 
word  wWich  ye  heard.  Again  a  new  commandment  I  write  to  you  ;  »  a  thing 
which  is  a  living  reality  in  Him  and  in  you  ;  because  the  darkness  is  passing 

\    '  JP^"  ^''''   3J.  -  I  Tohn  iv.  i6.  =•  Eph.  v.  i,  2. 

♦  1  he  whole  [jassagc  is  explained  in  the  accompanying  comment.  It  will  be  seen  that  I 
reject  the  explanation  of  the  commandment  as  wi-?*',  (i)  because  continually  renewed  (Calv.)  ; 
or  (2)  "given  a*  tJton^'A  it  were  new"  (Neander)  ;  or  (3)  as  unknown  before  Christ  came. 
I  he  commandment  is  "old"  as  d.-iting  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity  ;  new  if  we  look 
back  to  all  previous  a^cs.     Sec  Dustcrdieck.  and  Haupt. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  617 

away,  and  the  real  Light  is  already  shining.  He  that  saith  that  he  is  in  the 
Light,  and  hateth  his  brother,'  is  in  the  darkness  even  still.  He  that  loveth  his 
brother  abideth  in  the  Light,  and  there  is  no  stumbling-block  in  him. 2  But  he 
who  hateth  his  brother  is  in  the  darkness,  and  in  the  darkness  he  walketh,  and 
knoweth  not  where  he  goeth,^  because  darkness  blinded  his  eyes"  (ii.  6 — 11). 

The  verb  used  in  the  first  verse  of  the  clause  expresses  yet 
another  stage  of  fellowship  with  God — not  only  kiiowing  Him 
(verse  3),  or  being  in  Him  (verse  5),  but  abiding  in  Him.  But 
the  stronger  word  is  only  used  to  express  a  development  in 
the  conception  of  obedience — the  walking  as  Christ  walked. 
To  do  this  is  a  moral  obligation  following  necessarily  from  the 
profession  of  constant  union  with  God.  The  earnest  address, 
"Beloved,"  prepares  us  for  some  emphatic  announcement. 
St.  John  has  to  explain  the  identity  of  "walking  as  Christ 
w^alked"  with  a  commandment  which  is  at  once  old  and  new. 
The  new  and  the  old  commandments  are  not  two  different 
commandments,  but  one  and  the  same,  namely  the  command- 
ment which  they  received  from  the  beginning  of  their  Chris- 
tian life.  It  is  an  old  commandment,  not  only  (though  that 
is  true)  because  it  is  found  even  in  the  Old  Testament — for 
the  letter  is  addressed  to  the  Gentiles;  but  because  it  is  as  old 
as  the  whole  message  of  the  Gospel  to  them — "the  entire 
word  about  the  personal  Word"  which  they  received  in  the 
Apostolic  preaching.  But  if  Love  was  thus,  even  to  these 
Gentile  Christians,  an  old  commandment,  seeing  that  they 
had  heard  it  all  along,  in  what  sense  was  it  new?  We  might 
be  left — as  St.  John's  readers  would  have  been — merely  to 
conjecture  the  answer,  if  the  Epistle  had  not  depended  upon 
a  knowledge  of  the  Gospel.  But  turning  to  the  Gospel  we 
find  the  new  commandment  there,  and  also  the  occasion  on 
which  our  Lord  delivered  it.  Li  that  sweet  and  solemn  dis- 
course which  He  uttered  after  He  had  washed  His  disciples' 
feet,  and  which  was  intended  to  explain  that  act  of  sovereign 
condescension.  He  said,  "A  new  commandment  I  am  giving 
to  you,  that  ye  love  one  another;  as  I  loved  you  that  ye  also 
love  one  another.     In  this  shall  all  recognise  that  ye  are  my 

'  By  "brothers"  St.  John  means  in  the  first  instance  "Christians,"  but  obviously  he 
means  to  include  those  wider  senses  which  Christ  gave  to  the  word  "  neiglibour."  In  his 
method  of  regarding  all  conceptions  in  their  ideal  and  absolute  nature,  he  only  contemplates 
"  love"  and  "hatred,"  and  nothing  intermediate.  "Ubi  non  est  amor,  odium  est  :»cor  enim 
non  est  vacuum"  (Bengei). 

2  "He,"  says  Hengel,  "who  hates  his  brother  is  a  stumbling-block  to  himself,  and  runs 
against  liimself  and  against  everything  within  and  without  :  he  wlio  loves  has  a  smooth  jour- 
ney." See  John  xi.  9,  10.  "  If  any  man  walk  in  the  night  he  stumhleth,  because  the  light  is 
not  in  him."  The  man  who  walks  in  the  light  does  not  "set  up  the  stumbling-block  of  his 
iniquity  before  his  own  face"  (Ezek.  xiv.  3). 

3  "  It  nescius  in  Gehennam,  ignaruset  caecus  praecipitatur  in  poenam"  (Cyprian). 


6l8  TlIK    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

disciple?,  if  ye  have  love  for  one  another.'"  All  readers  of 
the  Epistle  in  reading  the  phrase,  "a  new  commandment," 
would  be  at  once  reminded  of  the  passage  which,  in  all  proba- 
bility, they  had  just  read  in  the  Gospel,  and  would  see  the 
analogy  between  "walking  as  Christ  walked,"  and  "loving  as 
Christ  loved."  Again  and  again,  both  in  parables  and  in 
direct  exhortation,  Christ  had  bidden  them  love  one  another, 
and  yet  the  commandment  became  a  new  commandment  with 
reference  to  the  time  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  then 
delivered.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  He  had  never  before  bidden 
them  to  love  as  He  loved^  and,  on  the  other,  His  act  in  wash- 
ing their  feet  had  set  brotherly  love  in  a  light  entirely  new. 
It  was  an  act  of  love,  altogether  exceptional  and  transcendent, 
as  St.  John  in  the  Gospel  had  emphatically  pointed  out.*^  .For 
the  Lord  Himself  had  called  attention  to  its  import  in  the 
question,  "Do  ye  recognise  the  meaning  of  what  I  have  done 
to  you?  I  gave  you  an  example,  that  as  /  did  to  yoii^  so  ye 
also  should  ever  do."^  It  was  an  act  of  love  in  its  supremest 
energy — an  instaiitia  ehicese?is  of  love  which  could  not  be  sur- 
passed. All  His  previous  acts  of  love  had  been  the  loving 
acts  of  One  infinitely  above  them — of  one  whom  they  called, 
and  who  was,  their  Teacher  and  Lord.  This  was  an  act  done 
as  though  He  were  their  minister  and  slave.  All  other  acts  had 
been  acts  which,  as  it  were,  He  must  have  done  in  accordance 
with  His  nature;  which,  if  He  had  7iot  done.  He  would  not 
have  reflected  the  perfectness  of  His  own  nature.  But  this 
was  not  an  act  which  could  have  been  expected;  it  was  an  act 
supremely  astonishing;  it  arose,  not  as  it  were  from  the  law 
t)f  any  moral  obligation,  but  from  love  acting  as  an  immeas- 
ural^le  impulse.  This,  then,  is  the  love  which  furnishes  the 
essence  of  the  new  commandment:  not  that  love  only  which 
must  ever  be  the  first  rule  of  Christian  exhortation,  but  the 
love  which  ever  advances  to  perfectionment,'*  and  so  works 
out  the  perfect  joy  into  which  it  was  one  of  the  Apostle's  ob- 
jects to  lead  his  readers. 

When  he  proceeds  to  say  that  this  new  commandment  is — 
is  already — a  "true  thing,"  as  being  alive  in  thern^  as  it  was 
in  Christ,  we  might  perhaps  be  once  more  driven  to  ask, 
"What,  then,  is  the  necessity  for  impressing  it  upon  them?"' 
The  answer,  as  before,  is  one  which  applies  to  every  one  of 
the  Epistles.     It  is  a  question  which  meets  us  at  every  turn  in 

>  John  xiii.  34,  j;.  2  xiii.  i.  »  xiii.  12,  15. 

<  llcb.  vi.  1.  »  Sec  sii/>ra,  p.  610, 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  619 

the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  where  there  is  often  so  glaring  a  con- 
trast between  what  Christians  ought  to  be,  and  are  asserted 
ideally  to  be,  and  what  they  really  are.  Christians  can  only 
be  addressed  as  Christians,  as  having  entered  into  the  hopes 
of  Christians,  as  enjoying  the  privileges  of  Christians,  as  being 
Christians  not  only  in  name  but  in  deed  and  in  truth.  If  then 
they  were  Christians  they  were  "in  Christ";  and  if  they  were 
in  Christ  they  were  walking  as  He  walked,  and  therefore 
walking  in  love.  The  love  which  was  a  real  thing  in  Him, 
was  necessarily  also  a  real  thing  in  them.  St.  John  could  not 
address  them  as  though  they  were  not  that  which,  as  the  very 
meaning  of  their  whole  lives,  they  were  professing  to  be. 
And,  indeed,  this  is  the  reason  which  he  gives.  The  Love, 
he  says,  which  is  the  new  commandment,  is  a  verity  in  Him 
and  in  you,  because  ye  are  children  of  the  Light,  and  there- 
fore the  darkness  is  passing  away.  For  all  who  were  truly  in 
Christ,  that  darkness  must  soon  have  passed  away  altogether; 
for  not  only  was  "the  night  far  spent,  and  the  day  at  hand,"* 
but  the  night  was  actually  over,  and  the  day  had  dawned. 
The  very  Light — Christ  who  is  the  Light — was  shining  already; 
shining  not  only  in  them  but  in  the  world.  For  the  world  is 
the  universal  realm  of  darkness,  but  in  Him  the  l^ight  is  con- 
centrated in  its  very  essence  and  fulness." 

And  then  very  plainly  the  Apostle  furnishes  them  with  a 
test  of  their  professions.  Love,  he  tells  them,  is  the  sign 
whether  or  not  the  Truth  is  in  them,  whether  or  not  they  are 
in  the  Light,  whether  or  not  they  are  walking  as  Christ 
walked.  And  the  energetic  severity  of  his  moral  nature  ap- 
pears here  also  in  his  stern  antithesis  of  love  to  hatred,  as 
though  there  were  no  possible  intermediate  between  them. 
When  we  consider  all  that  is  involved  in  the  word  "brother," 
the  idea  of  mere  indifference  in  such  a  relationship  becomes 
impossible.  If  there  be  not  the  essence  of  love,  there  can  only 
be  the  essence  of  hatred.  He,  therefore,  that  professes  to  be 
m  the  light  and  yet  hates  his  brother  is  in  the  darkness — 
belongs  to  the  world  and  not  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven — 
however  long  he  may  have  called  himself  a  Christian.  But 
he  who  loves  will  never  cause  another  to  stumble,  can  never 
therefore  incur  that  grievous  sentence  which  Christ  pronounced 
on  those  who  wilfully  lead  others  into  sin.^  The  man  who 
hates  his  brother  has  the  permanent  sphere  of  his  life  in  the 
darkness.     The  light  of  the  body  is  the   eye;  and  since  the 


Rom    xiii.  u  "*  John  i.  4-9.  ^  Matt,  xviii.  6. 


62 O  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

eye  of  such  a  man  is  evil,  liis  wliole  body  is  full  of  darkness. 
He  stumbles  through  life  along  a  road  of  which  he  does  not 
know  the  goal. 

These  two  illustrative  paragraphs  are  closed,  as  is  the  case 
in  the  first  section  of  the  Epistle  (ii.  i,  2),  by  a  hortatory  con- 
clusion/ which  falls  into  the  rhythm  so  natural  to  St.  John — 

"  I  write  to  you,  my  little  children, 2  because  ^  your  sins  have  been  forgiven 

vou  for  His  name's  sake  : 

"  I  write  to  you,  fathers,  because  ye  have  learnt  to  know  Him  who  is  from 

the  beginning:  •* 

"  I  write  to  you,  young  men,  because  ye  have  conquered  the  evil  one : 

' '  I  wrote  ^  to  you,  little  children, «  because  ye  have  learnt  to  know  the  Father  : 

"  I  wrote  to  you,  fathers,  because  ye  have  learnt  to  know  Him  who  is  from 

the  beginning : 

'*  I  wrote  to  you,  young  men,  because  ye  are  strong,"^  and  the  Word  of  God 

abideth  in  you,  and  ye  have  conquered  the  wicked  one  "  ^  (11.  12 — 14). 

In  these  words  we  have  a  six-fold  appeal,  of  which  the  first 
three  clauses  are  introduced  by  the  present,  "I  write,"  and 
the  last  three  by  the  aorist,  "I  wrote."  This  aorist  might  be 
rendered  in  English  by  the  perfect,  '' T have  written^''  since  it 
was  the  tense  used  by  epistolary  idiom  to  represent  a  letter 
regarded  as  a  whole.  The  first  question  to  be  settled  is 
whether  the  Apostle  has  in  view  three  different  ages  of  life. 
If  so,  it  is  crertainly  strange  that  he  should  place  ''fathers" 
between  "little  children"  and  "young  men."  From  his  use 
of  "little  children"  in  other  parts  of  the  Epistle,*  to  express 
the  7vhole  body  of  Christians,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  this 
is  his  meaning  here.  If  so,  in  the  first  of  each  three  clauses 
he  is  exhorting  Christians  as  a  body,  and  in  the  latter  two  he 
is  specially  speaking  to  the  two  classes  into  which  Christians 
of  that  day  might  most  generally  b^e  divided,  namely,  '  'fathers' ' 
and  "young  men."     Indeed,  to  address  "little  children"  as 


'  See  analysis,  supra,  p.  604. 

2  TtKvia,  addressed  to  all  Christians,  as  in  ver.  i  ;  iii.  18  ;  iv.  4  ;  v.  21  ;  John  xiii.  33.  It  is 
only  found  in  St.  John. 

3  That  oTi  here  means  "because,"  and  not  "  that,"  is  proved  by  ver.  21. 

*  •' Ahi  juvenes  f<?r/^r^,  vos  Jicie"  (BengelV 

'  iypaxpa  {^,  A,  B,  C,  L,  Syriac,  Coptic,  /Ethiopic,  Arabic),  not  ypoKfxo,  seems  to  be  the 
true  reading  in  this  verse.  It  is  very  difficult  to  say  why  the  tense  is  altered  ;  possibly  only 
for  emphasis,  like  the  formula  "'we  decree  and  have  decreed."  'J'he  attempt  to  refer  it  only  to 
the  part  of  the  Epistle  already  written,  while  ypd<}>ixi  points  to  what  follows,  is  untenable  and 
agamst  U'-age.  Hoth  words  refer  to  the  whole  Epistle.  It  is,  however,  curious  that  up  to  tiiis 
point  ypa.<j)<a  has  occurred  seven  times,  whereas  fypa\pa  is  used  six  times  in  the  rest  of  the 
letter. 

•  iraiiia  seems  to  differ  in  no  sense  from  TCKvia.  See  ver.  18  :  John  xxi.  5.  Perhaps  the 
change  is  merely  for  the  sake  of  literary  form  and  variety.  TeKvia  may  be  a  little  more  per- 
sonal and  affectionate,  and  so  be  represented,  as  Bishop  Wordsworth  says,  by  "  f»j'  little 
children." 

'  "Fitque  valens  juvenis  ncque  enim  robustior  aetas  UUa"  (Ov.  Afet.  xv.  208).  to-xwpoi 
{l.ukc  xi.  ai  :   Hcb.  xi.  34). 

"  In  all  these  appeals  the  strongest  w.irniug  is  involved  in  the  loftiness  of  the  assumed  ideal. 
"  li.  I,  a8. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  621 

such,  would  have  been  alien  to  the  habits  of  that  age,  nor  would 
little  children  have  understood  the  language  here  addressed 
to  them.  He  says  to  the  Christians  generally  that  their  sins 
have  been  forgiven  them,  because,  as  we  have  had  repeated 
occasion  to  see,  every  address  to  Christians  ''vaw^X. prcstippose 
Christianity  in  the  hearers,  and  yet  teach  it."  Hence  he  ad- 
dresses the  fathers  of  the  Churches,  whether  in  a  literal  or  an 
ideal  sense,  as  having  attained  to  the  true  knowledge  of  the 
Eternal  Father;  and  the  young  men  as  having  won  a  secure 
and  tranquil  mastery  over  temptation.  After  due  time  the 
voung  man's  conquest  will  lead  to  the  father's  knowledge. 
The  general  identity  in  meaning  of  the  second  three  with  the 
first  three  clauses  makes  it  somewhat  difficult  to  account  for 
the  change  of  tense.  Both  phrases,  "I  write"  and  "I  wrote," 
refer  to  this  letter;  the  first  as  expressing  the  writer's  present 
purpose,  the  other  mentally  glancing  at  it  as  a  completed 
whole.  The  two  together  give  a  greater  emphasis  to  his  ex- 
hortations,^ and  are,  perhaps,  meant  by  way  of  introduction 
to  the  following  section  of  the  Epistle: — 

"Love  not  the  worlds  nor  yet  the  things  in  the  world.3  If  any  man  love  the 
world,  the  love  of  the  Father  is  not  in  him  ; "  because  everything  that  is  in  the 
world,  the  desire  of  the  flesh,  and  the  desire  of  the  eyes,*  and  the  braggart 
vaunt  of  life, '5  is  not  from  the  Father,  but  is  from  the  world.  And  the  world  is 
passing  away,  and  the  desire  of  it.  But  he  who  doeth  the  will  of  God  abideth 
for  ever.  Little  children,  it  is  the  last  hour,^  and  as  ye  heard  that  Antichrist**  is 
coming,  even  now  antichrists  in  numbers  have  come  into  being,  whence  we  re- 
cognise that  it  is  the  last  hour.«  From  us  they  went  forth,  but  they  were  not  of 
us,  for  had  they  been  of  us  they  would  have  abode  with  us  ;  but  (they  went  out) 
in  order  that  they  may  be  manifested  that  all  are  not  of  us  "  i"  (ii.  15,  19). 

1  "  A  scribo  transit  ad  scripsi:  non  temere  ;  scilicet  verbo  scribendi  ex  praesenti  in  prae- 
teritum  transposito  immisit  commonitionem  formossimam "  (Bengel). 

2  "  God  loved  the  world"  (John  iii.  i6)  with  r>ivinc  compassion,  as  its  Creator ;  we  are  not 
to  love  it  with  base  desire.  We  are  not  to  set  our  affections  either  on  its  material  seductions, 
or  on  those  human  corruptions  which  mark  its  ruined  condition. 

^  All  kmds  of  sinful  living,  thinkmg,  and  demear.our  (Ebrard).  "  Vulgata  consuetudo 
hominum,  res  corporeas  unice  appetentium  "  (Semler). 

^  "  Contraria  non  sunt  simul  "  (Bengel). 

5  "Desire"  {in(,6v^.ia)  is  coupled  (always  subjectively,  i.e..  the  desire  of,  noi/cr)  with 
"the  heart"  (Rom.  i.  24),  "the  body"  (Rom.  vi.  12),  and  "mankind"  (r  "Pet.  iv.  2.  etc.). 
Desires  are  called  "worldly"  (Tit.  ii.  12)  and  "fleshly"  (i  Pet.  ii.  11).  By  the  "desire  of 
the  fle.sh  "  is  meant  every  form  of  wrong  or  excessive  lust.  By  the  "desire  of  the  eyes  "  is 
meant  tlie  sphere  of  selfishness,  envy,  covetousness,  hatred,  and  revenge  (Ebrard).  Thus  in 
the  Testatnetit  0/ the  Tivelve  Patriarchs,  one  of  the  seven  "  spirits  of  deceit  "  is  the  "  spirit 
of  seeing,  with  which  desire  is  produced." 

•5  Similarly,  while  speaking  of  luxurious  extravagance.  Polybius  (vi.  5,  7)  says— ij  Trepl  roii? 
/3t'ov5  a\a^oyeia  Koi  TroAureAeia.  Chrysostom  calls  it  "  the  inflation  (tO^os)  and  outward 
splendour  {(jjapraaia)  of  worldly  life.''      "  Libido  scntiendi,  sciendi,  dominandi "  (Pascal). 

■^  All  Christians  felt  that  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  was  the  close  of  an  aeon.  It  was  a  coming 
of  Christ.  They  all  felt  that  after  that  He  might  finally  come  to  judgment  at  any  time.  "  VI- 
timum  lempus,  in  quo  sic  complentur  omnia  ut  nihil  supersil  praeter  ultimam  Christi  revela- 
tionem"  (Calvin  :   i  Cor.  xv.  22  ;  2  Cor.  v.  t,  s^.  ;   i  Thess.  iv.  15,  -v^.). 

«  "Antichrist"  is  a  word  peculiar  to  St.  John  in  the  N.  T.  (ii.  18,  22  ;  iv.  3  ;  2  John  7). 
The.-e  are  the  only  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs.  .Strange  to  say,  it  is  not  once  used  in 
tlie  Apocalypse.  ^  "  2  Tim.  iii.  i,  sy. 

If  'J'hc  ov  iravres  might  mean  "  none,"  as  ov  naa-a  crapf  means  "no  flesh  "  in  Rom.  iii.  20, 
but  it  is  simpler  to  explain  the  passage  as  a  mixture  of  two  constructions,  "  that  thej'  may  be 


622  THI-:    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

With  this  chuise  begins  the  third  section  of  St.  John's  ilhis- 
trations  as  to  the  nature  and  meaning  of  "walking  in  the 
light.'/  As  the  very  name  of  the  Light  reminds  us  of  the 
darkness,  which  is  its  opposite;  and  as  God's  kingdom  is  the 
sphere  of  Light,  so  the  world  is  the  realm  of  darkness.  He, 
then,  who  would  walk  in  the  Light  must  enter  into  the  mean- 
ing of  this  severance.  He  must  not  love  the  world,  nor  the 
things  which  enter  into  the  ideas  of  the  world.  Those  things 
are  defined  under  their  ethical  aspect.  They  are  the  objects 
of  sensual  desire  in  all  its  forms.  They  are  the  things  whic!i 
tend  to  the  gratification  of  the  flesh — that  is,  of  our  whole 
lower  and  animal  nature — everything  which  tends  to  foster 
and  stimulate  the  sins  of  gluttony,  drunkenness,  and  impurity 
in  all  their  many  forms  and  gradations.  They  are  the  things 
which  gratify  the  desire  of  the  eyes — all  that  tends  to  the  sins 
of  intellectual  selfishness  and  slothful  ^theticism.^  They  are 
the  braggart  vaunt  of  outward  life — all  that  tends  to  the  sins 
of  vulgar  ostentation,  egotistic  pride,  intellectual  contempt, 
which  spring  from  regarding  life,  not  in  its  divine  and  spirit- 
ual (^w/)),  but  in  its  earthly  and  external  aspect  (/S^'o?).^  In  St. 
John's  language,  therefore,  the  world  {/cosmos)  does  not  mean 
the  physical  universe,  which  does  indeed  deserve  the  name  of 
"order,"  by  which  it  is  described,^  but  the  world  regarded  in 
its  ethical  sense,  that  is,  a  world  disordered  by  the  unre- 
strained prevalence  of  sinful  forces,  the  world  fettered  in  the 
bondage  of  corruption. "*  He  bids  us  not  to  love  this  world 
— to  have  no  esteem  and  affection  for  it — for  two  reasons. 
First,  because  such  love  cannot  proceed  from  God,  but  from 
that  evil  principle  which  is  the  source  of  all  vain  and  vile  de- 
sires; and  next,  because  the  world  is  but  a  fleeting  show,  and 
the  desires  which  it  inflames  can  have  but  an  instant's  gratifi- 
cation. On  the  other  hand,  he  who  makes  the  will  of  God  the 
law  of  all  his  actions,  abides  for  ever.  And  it  is  the  property 
of  love  to  bind  us  closely  to  that  which  we  love;  if  we  love  the 
earth  we  are  earthly;  the  love  of  God  makes  us  divine.^ 

Then  from  the  general  warning  against  the  world  he  de- 
scends to  its  special  manifestation  in  the  form  of  anti-Chris- 
tian error,  which  he  introduces  with  the  address  of  fatherly 


inanifcst'.-d  .IS  not  belonging  to  us,"  and  "that  it  may  be  manifested  that  all  (/.^.,  all  who 
nominally  bcionj;  to  us)  are  not  of  us."  i  Matt.  vi.  22. 

2  ^ios,  mere  "living" — the  psychic,  animal,  sensuous  life,  as  in  iii.  17.  iv  capKi  /Sioxrai, 
I  Pet.  iv.  3. 

'  "  Quern  woo-Moi/  Graeci  nomine  ornamenti  appellaveruiit"  (Plin.  //.  A'^.  ii.  3). 

*  Rom.  viii.  19,  20. 

*  "  Amor  habct  vim  unicndi ;  si  terrain  amas  tencnus  es,  si  Deum  divinus"  (Gerson). 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  623 

tenderness,  "Little  children,  it  is  the  last  hour."  The  word 
and  its  desire  is  passing  away  now,  it  has  not  long  to  last. 
The  final  dispensation  has  begun.  There  will  not  be,  there 
cannot  be,  any  new  dispensation.  How  long  this  seon  is  to 
last  neither  St.  John  knew  nor  any  man,  not  even  the  angels 
in  heaven.  With  reference  to  all  previous  aeons  this  is  the 
final  aeon.  At  its  close  there  will  be  the  new  heaven  and  the 
new  earth.  And  potentially  this  aeon  is  already  complete. 
With  the  manifestation  of  the  Word  in  flesh  its  whole  develop- 
ment was  condensed  into  its  first  moment.  It  may  linger  on 
for  a  thousand  years,  for  a  thousand  years  is  with  the  Lord  as 
one  day;  but  "it  has  already  advanced  to  the  top  of  its  de- 
velopment, and  therefore  hastens  to  its  end."  And  one 
sign  of  that  ever-approaching  end — ever  approaching  however 
long  delayed — is  the  existence  already  of  many  Antichrists. 
Whether  the  many  were  yet  to  be  concentrated  into  one  mon- 
strous development  of  intense  personal  wickedness,  St.  John 
does  not  say.  The  word  Antichrist,  which  St.  John  alone 
uses,  may  mean  either  "m/^/jr  of  Christ" — i.c.^  pseudo-Christs 
(Matt.  xxiv.  5,  11),  or ''enemies jdi  Christ;"^ — either  those  who 
try  to  pass  themselves  off  as  Christs,  or  those  who  set  them- 
selves in  open  array  against  him.  An  Antichrist  may  take  the 
semblance  of  a  Nero  or  of  a  Simon  Magus,  of  a  Priest  or  of  a 
A^oltaire.  St.  John  enters  into  no  details  because  his  readers 
had  already  heard  that  Antichrist  cometh.  This  must  refer 
to  his  own  oral  teachings,  or  those  of  other  Apostles,  for  he 
tells  us  afterwards  that  by  "Antichrists"  he  means  those  who 
deny  the  Incarnation  (iv.  3),  or  who  deny  the  Father  and  the 
Son  (ii.  22).  This  form  of  Antichrist  is  not  described  either 
by  Daniel,  or  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Man  of  Sin.  If,  in  2  Thess. 
3,  4,  the  expression  of  St.  Paul  may  admit  of  some  sort  of  an- 
alogous interpretation,  it  certainly  could  not  have  been  as- 
sumed by  St.  John  that  the  brief  letter  to  a  Macedonian 
Church  would  already  have  pervaded  the  whole  of  Asia." 

Nevertheless,  the  prevalence  of  these  Antichrists,  of  whom 
St.  John  had  orally  spoken,  was  the  direct  fulfilment  of  the 
weeping  prophesy  of  St.  Paul,  in  his  farewell  to  the  Ephesian 


^  The  preposition  o»tI  is  used  in  both  senses  In  compounds — either  (i^  "  instead  of"  or  (2) 
"opposed  to."  Thus  we  have  (i)  di^ijSao-iAev?,  "a  viceroy;"  an-i'Peo?,  '*a  demigod  :" 
avOvnaTos,  "a  proconsul,"  etc.  ;  and  (2)  aKri(/)tA6<jo</)os,  ^"an  enemy  to  philosophers  :  "  it'Ti- 
|iax>)Ti)?,  "an  opponent;"  avriKariMV ,  a  book  "  against  Cato."  Had  St.  John  meant  "a 
rii.ial  of  Christ,"  he  would  have  used  pseudochristos,  as  he  uses  pseudo-propketes.  The 
Fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  understood  the  word  normally  to  mean  "  contrarius  Christo  "' 
(Aug.),  "  Christi  rebelles  "  (Tert.).  See  Trench.  Synofiyms  0/ tke  New  Tfstniuefit,  p.  145. 
See  Kurd's  Sermons  on  Prophecies  respecting  Antichrist^  and  Prejudices  aguinst  the 
Doctrine.  3  _^cts  xxi.  29,  30. 


624  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Elders,  "that  after  his  departure  grievous  wolves  would  enter 
among  them,  not  sparing  the  flock,  and  that/r^;;/  ai7iong  their 
own  selves  men  would  arise,  speaking  perverted  things  to  drag 
away  disciples  after  them."  The  very  danger  to  the  Church 
lay  in  the  fact  that  this  anti-Christian  teaching  arose  out  of 
her  own  bosom.  The  Antichrists  did  not  openly  apostatise 
from  the  Christian  body;  they  corrupted  it  from  within. 
They  still  ^-fz//*^^  themselves  Christians;  had  they  really  been 
so,  they  would  have  continued  to  be  so.  But  theic  present 
apostasy  was  a  manifestation  of  the  fact  that  they  never  had 
been  true  Christians,  and  that  not  all  who  called  themselves 
Christians  are  such  in  reality. 

But  if  there  be  these  dangers  from  within — if  the  Christi- 
anity of  the  lips  is  consistent  with  anti-Christianity  of  life — if 
walking  in  the  light  is  nevertheless  wholly  incompatible  with 
any  fellowship  with  the  world,  as  manifested  in  this  or  any 
other  form  of  anti-Christianity — how  is  the  Christian  to  be 
secured?  That  is  the  question  which,  in  the  next  section, 
St.  John  proceeds  to  answer, 

» 

"  But  ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things,  i  He 
that  confesseth  the  .Son  hath  also  the  ?'ather.  I  have  not  written  unto  ye  be- 
cause ye  know  not  the  truth,  but  because  ye  know  it,  and  because  no  lie  is  of 
the  truth.  Who  is  the  liar  but  he  that  denieth  Jesus  is  the  Christ?  This  is  the 
Antichrist ;  even  he  that  denieth  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  whosoever  denieth 
the  Son  the  same  hath  not  the  Father  ;  he  that  confesseth  the  Son  hath  the 
Father  also.  Ye — what  ye  heard  from  the  beginning,  let  it  abide  in  you.  If 
that  abide  in  you  which  ye  heard  from  the  beginning,  ye  also  shall  abide  in  the 
Son  and  in  the  Father.  And  this  is  the  promise  which  he  promises  to  us — 
Eternal  Life. 

"  These  things  wrote  I  to  you  concerning  those  who  mislead  you.  And  ye 
— the  unction"-*  which  ye  received  from  Him,  abideth  in  you,  and  ye  have  not 
need  that  any  man  teach  you,  but  as  the  unction  itself  teacheth  you  concerning 
all  things, 3  and  is  a  true  thing  and  not  a  lie  ;  and  even  as  it  taught  you,  abide 
in  it"  (ii,  20 — 27). 

Here  then  is  the  Christian's  security — an  unction  from  the 
Holy  Spirit,  an  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  we 
are  anointed  to  be  Kings,  and  Priests,  and  Prophets,*  even  as 
Prophets,^  Priests,  and  Kings  were  anointed  of  old.  We  are 
anointed  by  the  same  chrism  as  was  Christ  himself,  and  there- 
fore can  discern  between  Christ  and  Antichrist.  This  was  the 
Lord's  promise  that  His  Holy  Spirit  should  lead  us  into  all 

1  "  .Si  Christum  bene  scis,  satis  est  si  caeiera  nescis  ; 
Si  Christum  nescis,  nihil  est,  si  caetcra  discis  " 

Motto  of  Johann  Bugenhagen. 

'  The  word  chrisvia,  not  used  in  the  Gospel,  may  be  suggested  by  the  word  M\\\christos. 

All  Christians  are  christoi,  "anointed  of  God."     Comp.  Acts  x.  38,  "God  afiohited  Him 

with  the  Holy  Spirit."  3  That  is,  all  things  essential ;  all  that  we  need. 

*  Is.  Ixi.  I.     Kings  and  priest.s,  Rev.  i.  6  ;   "a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,"  1  Pot.  ii. 

9  ;  prophets,  Joel  ii.  =8  ;  .^cls  ii.  17,  18.  "  1  Kings  .\i.\.  16  only. 


THE   FIRST    EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  625 

truth,  and  therefore  separate  us,  by  His  consecration,  from 
the  region  of  darkness,  from  the  world,  its  errors  and  its 
lusts.  And  this  is  why  St.  John  need  not  dwell  on  a  multi- 
tude of  particulars,  or  track  the  various  ramifications  of  de- 
ceit. For  he  is  not  writing  to  Jews  or  to  Gentiles,  but  to 
Christian  men,  whom  he  needs  only  to  remind  that  they  belong 
to  the  sphere,  not  of  lying  semblances  but  of  the  Eternal  ancl 
the  Real.  They  are  already  "in  the  light;"  he  does  but  need 
to  remind  them  to  abide  therein.  Now,  for  a  Christian  to 
deny  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  stamps  him  as  radically  untrue. 
He  must  have  ceased  to  be  "in  Christ"  by  that  denial;  he 
must  have  left  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  the  world,  the  light 
for  the  darkness,  the  Real  for  the  illusory.  And  to  deny  the 
Son  is  to  deny  the  Father,  since  only  by  the  Son  has  the 
Father  been  made  known.  These  stern,  disconnected  sen- 
tences, falling  like  hammer  strokes  on  the  heart  of  the  listener, 
mark  that  holy  and  uncompromising  severity  of  St.  John's 
ideal,  which  resulted  from  his  living  in  the  atmosphere  of  con- 
templation, and  regarding  all  things  in  their  inmost  nature 
and  essence.  Yet  we  should  judge,  from  the  affectionate  title 
of  "little  children"  by  which  they  are  introduced,  and  we 
know  from  the  precious  traditions  of  the  Apostle's  later  days, 
that  this  stern  theological  inflexibility  cannot  be  perverted,  as 
it  so  often  has  been,  into  an  excuse  for  theological  hatred  and 
party  spirit,  since  it  \t'as  combined  with  the  tenderest  charity 
towards  erring  souls. 

But  to  save  them  from  all  this  terrible  defection,  they  had 
but  to  abide  in  the  truth  which  they  heard  from  the  first,  and 
to  suffer  it  to  abide  in  them.  The  exhortation  resembles  that 
of  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel,  "Abide  in  Me  and  I  in  you.'  If 
ye  abide  in  Me,  and  My  words  abide  in  you,  ye  shall  ask  for 
yourselves  whatever  5^e  will  and  it  shall  be  granted  to  you." 
Their  active  endeavours  after  constancy  would  be  followed  by 
a  passive  growth  in  grace.  The  abiding  is  secured  by  the 
constancy.  The  constancy  is  secured  by  the  abiding.  "It 
is  a  permanent  and  continuous  reciprocation;  the  abiding 
of  Christ  in  men  furthers  their  abiding  in  Him;  this  again 
facilitates  the  former;  and  so  it  goes  on." 

This  abiding  is  what  He  promised  to  us,  and  it  is  Eternal 
Life.  For  Eternal  Life  is  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  "This  is  Life  Eternal,  that  they  should  learn  to  know 
Thee  the  Only  the  Very  God,  and  Him  whom  Thou  sendest, 
Jesus  Christ."*' 

1  Jolin  XV.  4,  5,  7.  2  John  wii.  2,  3. 

40 


626  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Then,  in  the  h\st  two  verses  (26,  27),  comes  the  recapit- 
ulation and  closing  exhortation,  before  he  passes  to  a  new 
topic.  "You  have  heard  your  danger.  You  are  aware  of 
that  Unction  which  will  secure  you  against  it.  I  have  told 
you  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  Eternal  Life,  and  of  the  fel- 
lowship on  which  I  touched  at  the  beginning  of  my  letter. 
Abide  in  the  Unction.  It  is  a  thing  absolutely  real,  incom- 
municably  dissevered  from  all  that  is  false.  Thus  it  is  a  source 
of  all  true  teaching  to  you.  That  is  the  one  command  which 
is  needful  for  you." 

SECTION  II. 

THE    CONFIDENCE    OF   SONSHIP. 

Having  thus  shown  at  length  that  fellowship  with  God  in- 
volves a  walk  in  the  Light,  and  a  confession  of  sin,  and  that 
our  fellowship  with  the  brethren  consists  in  general  obedience 
to  the  commands  of  God,  and  special  imitation  of  Christ  in 
His  love  for  all;  and  having  shown  that  this  common  fellow- 
ship with  God  and  with  our  brethren  necessitates  an  absolute 
severance  from  the  world  in  general,  and  from  all  antichris- 
tian  teaching  in  particular,  he  enters  on  another  topic — 
namely,  on  the  confidence  inspired  by  Sonship  as  a  sign  of  our 
possession  of  Eternal  Life, 

"And  now  little  children  abide  in  Him,  that  if  Hebe  manifested  we  may- 
have  confidence,  and  may  not  be  shamed  away  from  Him  in  His  appearing.* 
If  ye  know  that  He  is  righteous,  ye  recognise  that  every  one  also  who  doeth 
righteousness  has  been  born  of  Him. 

"  See  what  love  the  Father  hath  given  to  us  2  that  we  should  be  called  chil- 
dren of  God.3  [And  such  we  are. •»]  For  this  cause  the  world  recogniseth  not 
us,  because  it  did  not  recognise  Him.  Beloved,  now  we  are  children  of  God, 
and  not  yet  is  it  manifested  what  we  shall  be.  We  know  that  if  He  be  mani- 
fested we  shall  be  like  Him,  because  we  shall  see  Him  even  as  He  is.  And 
every  one  who  hath  this  hope  in  Him,  purifieth  himself  even  as  He  is  pure  "^ 
(ii.  28— iii.  3). 


'  I'  Ne  pudefiamus  ab  eius  praesentiS"  (Calvin).     Matt.  xxv.  41.     Tropeveo-^c  aii  iiiov. 
''?*"''  '.' "idignis,  inimicis,  peccatoribus"  (Corn,  a  Lapide). 

'  The  missionary  Ziegebalg  tells  an  interesting  story  that  in  translating  this  passage  with 
the  aid  of  a  Hindoo  youth,  ihe  youth  rendered  it,  "that  we  should  be  nlhnveci  to  kiss  His 
feet."  When  asked  why  he  thns  diverged  from  the  te.xt,  he  replied,  "  A  Child !  that  is  too 
much— too  high  !  "  (Hraune,  nd  loc). 

*  J  hesc  words  are  found  in  X,  A,  I?,  C,  Theophylact  (yece'crflai  re  koX  Aoyiaff^i'oi),  Augus- 
tine, etc.  1  hey  are  omitted  in  K,  L,  and  by  fEcumenius..  They  may  be  genuine,  but  read 
like  an  awkward  gloss.     The  A'ulg.  renders  it  wrongly  "  et  si/rius.'' 

Coinp.  2  Cor.  vii.  i.  The  Apostles  do  not  deem  it  necessary  at  every  turn  lo  introduce 
all  the  qiiahhcations  which  would  express  the  whole  truth  as  to  the  Divine  and  human  elements 
in  the  work  ol  salvation  :  but  of  course  the  "purifieth  himself"  must  be  understood  side  by 
side  with  John  xv.  5,  "  without  Me  ye  can  do  nothing."  "  Castificas  te.  non  de  te,  sod  de  iHo 
«jui  venit  ut  inhahitct  te  "  (Aug.).  'J'here  seems  to  be  no  fundamental  distinction  between  the 
uses  of  oyj/ifw  and  KaBapC^u).  The  adjectives  aym,  Ka9apog  are  used  indifferently  for  "Tint: 
in  the  l.XX.  both  of  materia!  (Num.  viii.  21,  etc.)  and  spiritual  things  (Ps.  xi.  7,  etc.). 


THE   IIRST    EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  62/ 

The  "and  now,"  and  the  address,  "Httle  children,"  of  ii. 
28,  together  with  the  introduction  of  the  four  new  thoughts — 
of  Christ's  "manifestation,"  of  our  having  "confidence,"  of 
"doing  righteousness,"  and  of  having  been  "born  of  God" 
— all  indicate  the  beginning  of  a  new  section.  And  every  one 
of  these  new  thoughts  is  referred  to  and  developed  in  the  next 
great  division  of  the  Epistle.' 

i.  As  regards  the  '' matiifesiation'  of  Christ,  that  term,  as 
expressive  of  His  return  to  judgment,  is  peculiar -to  wSt.  John, 
and  marks  his  invariable  point  of  view  that  all  things  in  the 
Divine  economy  advance,  not  by  sudden  catastrophes,  but  by 
germinant  developments  in  accordance  with  eternal  laws. 
Christ  is  present  now;  His  return  will  be  but  a  manifestation 
of  His  Presence;  and  it  is,  perhaps,  the  consciousness  that 
Christ  is  always  present  which  has  prevented  St.  John  from 
elsewhere  using  the  word  Parousia  for  His  second  return, 
though  that  term  is  so  common  in  the  other  sacred  writers. 
Only  by  abiding  in  God  can  we  meet  that  manifested  Pres- 
ence without  shame,  and  answer  with  confidence  at  His 
judgment  seat.  Now,  as  St.  John  has  already  said  that 
"every  one  who  abideth  in  Him  sinneth  not,"  so  now  he 
expresses  the  same  thought  in  a  more  developed  form,  by 
saying  that  the  doing  righteousness — as  He  is  righteous — 
is  the  test  of  having  been  born  of  Him.  He  who  does  not  sin 
has  fellowship  with  God.  He  whose  innocence  is  manifested 
in  righteousness  may  know  with  confidence  that  he  has  been 
born  of  God.  Here  the  Evangelist's  point  of  view  nearly  re- 
sembles that  of  St.  Paul,  when  he  says  that  "the  foundation 
of  God  standeth  sure,  having  this  seal, — 'The  Lord  knoweth 
them  that  are  His,'  and  'Let  every  one  that  nameth  the  name 
of  Christ  depart  from  iniquity.'  "''' 

The  righteous  man,  then,  is  the  son  of  God;  and  what  love 
has  the  Father  given  us  with  this  very  object — that  we  may 
be  called  His  children!  St.  John  does  not  call  us  "sons"  of 
God,  as  St.  Paul  does,^  but  "children,"  because  he  regards 
the  sonship  less  as  adoptive  and  more  as  natural.  If  the  world 
does  not  recognise  the  sonship  we  are  not  to  be  surprised, 


1  "Manifestation  of  Christ"  (iii.  3-8)  ;  "Confidence"  (iii.  21  ;  iv.  17  ;  v.  14)  ;  "Doing 
righteousness"  (iii.  i-io)  ;  being  "born  of  God"  (iii.  24,  seq.). 

2  2  Tim.  ii.  19. 

'  "  According  to  St.  Paul  we  receive  for  Christ's  sake  the  rights  of  children.  According 
to  St.  John  we  receive  through  Christ  the  children's  nature.  According  to  St.  Paul  the  old 
nature" of  man  is  transformed  into  a  new.  According  to  St.  John  an  altogether  new  principle 
of  nature  takes  the  place  of  the  former.  It  is  most  evident  that  the  two  views  are  substaniiaily 
one,  and  true,  but  they  depend  on  the  respective  general  systems  of  the  two  Apostles  "  (Hanpt, 
p.  156). 


628  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

since  neither  did  it  recognise  the  Sonship  of  Him  from  whom 
our  sonship  is  derived.  But  there  is  another  reason  why  St. 
John  calls  us  "children"  rather  than  "sons."  It  is  because 
the  word  "childhood"  involves  in  it  the  necessary  idea  of 
future  growth,  and  this  is  true  of  our  relation  to  God.  Chil- 
dren we  are,  and  something  more  than  this  we  shall  be  here- 
after, because  we  shall  see  God,  and,  therefore,  become  more 
and  more  like  Him,  though  that  new,  and  as  yet  unknown, 
relationship  to  Him  will  be  but  the  full  evolution  of  the  old. 
And  it  is  the  constant  aim  of  every  one  who  really  holds  this 
hope  to  begin  that  ever-increasing  resemblance,  by  even  now 
purifying  himself  even  as  Christ  is  pure. 

Our  sonship  of  God  is,  therefore,  tested  at  the  Last  Day  by 
our  lives;  and  to  us  it  can  only  become  a  matter  of  present 
assurance  by  doing  righteousness.  He  proceeds  to  illustrate 
this  truth  in  four  sentences,  of  which  each  consists  of  two 
clauses.  First,  he  shows  that  sin  is  opposed  to  God  and 
opposed  to  Christ  (vs.  4,  5);  then  that  to  abide  in  Him  is  to 
be  sinless,  and  that  to  be  sinful  is  never  to  have  seen  Him  (v. 
6);  nay  more,  he  shows  that  to  do  righteousness  is  to  be  of 
God,  and  to  do  sin  is  to  be  of  the  devil  (vs.  7,  8);  then,  in  the 
last  two  verses  of  the  clause  (9,  10),  he  recapitulates  the 
proof,  and  states  the  final  result. 

The  section  then  is  as  follows: — 

"  Every  one  that  committeth  sin  committeth  also  lawlessness,  and  sin  is  law- 
lessness. And  ye  know  that  He  was  manifested  that  He  may  take  away  sins,' 
and  sin  is  not  in  Him  "  (iii.  4,  5). 

"  Every  one  who  abideth  in  Him  sinneth  not.  Every  one  who  sinneth  hath 
not  seen  Him  nor  even  known  Him  "  2  (ver.  6). 


I  "ToUit  peccata  et  dimittendo  quae  facta  sunt,  et  adjuvando  ne  fiant,  et  perducendo  ad 
vitam  ubi  fieri  omnino  noii  possunt "  (IJede). 

'  "  In  ipso  peccati  momento  talis  fit,  ac  si  Eum  nuUo  viderit  modo"  (Bengal).  This  verse, 
as  Theophylact  tells  us,  was  regarded  by  Antinomian  Gnostics  as  proving  the  indefectibility 
of  grace,  and  so  was  turned  into  an  excuse  for  lasciviousness.  But  that  z^xfa^m  J'ractical 
modifications  must  be  admitted  is  clear,  from  previous  passages  in  the  Epistle  itself.  The 
older  expositors  generally  adopted  the  method  of  toning  down  the  Apostle's  language.  Modern 
expositors  accept  the  language  as  meanmg  what  it  says,  but  regard  it  as  applying  only  to  the 
ideal.  The  two  methods  come  to  much  the  same  thing  in  the  end.  Thus,  m  verse  9,  some  ex- 
plain "he  cannot  sin,"  by — 

He  cannot  commit  mortal  sin  (Romanists). 

He  cannot  sin  deliberately  and  intentionally  (Ebrard). 

He  cannot  sin  in  the  way  of  hating  his  brother  (Augustine,  Bede). 

It  is  alien  from  his  nature  to  sin  (Grotius). 

His  nature  and  habit  resist  sin  (PauUis). 

He  does  not  wish  to  sin,  or  ou^ht  not  to  sin  (various  Commentators). 

He  cannot  be  a  sinner  (a/utapTai/eii/)  (Wordsworth,  and  so  Didymus). 

He  does  not  sin,  he  only  suffers  sin  (Hesser;  comp.  Rom.  vii.  17). 

So  far  as  he  remains  true  to  himself,  he  does  not  sin  (Augustine). 

So  long  as  he  is  a  child  of  God  he  cannot  sin  (others). 
The  only  possible  escape  from  some  such  modification,  is  by  asserting  the  possibility  of  sinless- 
ness  m  this  life  (which  contradicts  i.  8),  or  else  by  asserting  that  «tf«.?  of  us  have  seen  God,  and 
none  of  us  arc  children  of  God  (which  contradicts  the  whole  Epistle).     Hopkins  says,  "The 


THE   FIRST   EPIS'l'LE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  629 

"  Little  children,  let  no  one  mislead  you.  He  that  doeth  righteousness  is 
righteous  as  He  is  righteous.  He  that  doeth  sin  is  of  the  devil, 1  because  the 
devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning.'-  For  this  purpose  was  the  Son  of  'iod  mani- 
fested that  He  may  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil  "  (ver.  7,  8). 

"  Every  one  that  hath  been  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  because  His 
seed  abideth  in.him  ;  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  He  has  been  born  of  God  " 
(ver.  9).  ^_ 

"  In  this  are  manifest  the  children  of  God  and  the  children  of  the  devil' 
(ver.  lOfz). 

To  careless  and  superficial  readers  many  of  these  clauses 
might  look  like  mere  mysticism  clothed  in  antithetic  tautolo- 
gies. To  one  who  has  tried  to  study  the  mind  and  manner 
of  St.  John,  they  are  full  of  the  deepest  meaning.  Take  the 
very  first  clause.  How  deep  and  awful  a  conception  of  sin 
ought  we  to  derive  from  the  fact  that  all  sin,  however  slight 
it  may  seem  to  us,  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference,  but  a  trans- 
gression of  the  divine  law!  How  does  such  a  conception  tend 
to  silence  our  petty  excuses,  or  our  weak  talk  about  pardon- 
able human  imperfections!  How  different  will  be  our  tone — 
how  little  shall  we  be  inclined  "to  say  before  the  angel  'It 
was  an  eri-or  " — when  once  we  have  realised  this  "universal 
and  exceptionless  fact!"  And  still  more  when  we  remember 
that  not  only  is  every  sin,  in  God's  sight,  the  violation  of  the 
eternal  law,  but  also  a  violation  of  the  whole  purpose  of 
Christ's  manifestation  which  was  expressly  meant  to  take  all 
sins  away.  And  when  St.  John  proceeds  to  say  that  he  who 
sinneth  hath  never  seen  or  known  God,  however  much  we 
may  be  inclined  to  introduce  limitations  into  this  language, 
both  by  the  daily  facts  of  Christian  experience,  and  the  recog- 
nition in  this  very  Epistle  that  even  the  most  advanced  be- 
liever does  not  here  attain  to  absolute  sinlessness  (i.  8 — 10), 


interpretation  which  I  judge  to  be  most  natural  and  unforced  is  this  :  He  that  is  born  of  God 
doth  not  commit  sin — that  is,  he  doth  not  sin  in  that  malignant  manner  in  which  the  children 
of  the  devil  do  ;  he  doth  not  make  a  trade  of  sin,  nor  live  in  the  constant  and  allowed  practice 
of  it.  .  .  .  There  is  a  great  difference  between  regenerate  and  unregenerate  persons  in  the 
very  sins  that  they  commit.  ''Their  spot  is  not  the  spot  of  his  children'  (Dent,  xxxii.  5). 
And  as  they  differ  in  the  committing  of  sin,  so  much  more  in  the  opposing  of  it."  And  if  the 
Stoic  was  allowed  to  set  before  himself  his  ideal,  why  may  not  the  Christian  do  the  same? 
.Seneca  said  that  the  wise  man  was  not  only  able  to  do  right,  but  even  could  not  do  otherwise. 
"  /7?-  bonus  lion  potest  non/acere  quod  facit ;  in  omni  actu  par  sibi^jani  non  consilio 
bonus,  sed  more  eo  />erductus  ;  ut  non  tatitutn  recte  facere  possit,  sed  jiisi  recte  fncere 
}ton  possit."  And  Velleius  Paterculus  said  of  the  "younger  Cato,  "  Homo  virtuti  simillimus, 
et  per  omnia  ingenioDiis  quam  hominibus  propior,  qui  nunquam  recte  fecit  ut  facere  videretur, 
sed  quia  aliter  facc7-e  fwn  poterat"  [Hist.  ii.  34)  ;  and  he  spoke  of  him  as  "exempt  from 
all  human  vices."  And  Tacitus  said  that  when  Nero  wished  to  kill  Paetus  Thrasea,  it  was  as 
if  he  wished  "  to  kill  virtue  herself."  'J'he  Christian  ideal  is  infinitely  higher  than  the  Stoic, 
and  that  is  why  the  Christian  knows  that  not  even  a  saint  can  be  absolutely  sinless  ;  yet  he 
hates  sin,  and  more  and  more  wins  the  victory  over  it. 

1  He  does  not  say,  ' '  borji  of  the  devil."  "  Neminem  fecit  diabolus,  neminem  geuuit  nemi- 
nem  creavit"  (Aug. ).     His  work  is  "  corruptio  non  generatio"  (Bengel). 

"  Not  "  ex  quo  diabolus  est  diabolus"  (Bengel),  but  since  sin  began  ;  "  ab  initio— oi)  pec- 
care." 


630  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

yet  the  awfulness  of  the  stern,  unbending  language  tends  to 
convince  us,  more  than  anything  else  could,  of  the  exceeding 
sinfulness  of  sin,  seeing  that  every  act  of  it  is  a  proof,  as  far 
as  it  goes,  of  alienation,  from  God;  of  affiliation,  in  some 
sense,  to  him  from  whom  all  sin  began.  It  is  a  nullifying  of 
all  that  Christ  died  to  achieve.  The  summing  up,  then,  of 
what  he  has  said,  is  that  in  every  one  who  has  been  born  of 
God  there  is  a  principle  of  divine  life  which  renders  sin  im- 
possible. Sin,  on  the  other  hand,  shows,  by  ethical  likeness, 
its  Satanic  parentage.  St.  John  divides  all  men  simply  into 
children  of  God  and  children  of  the  devil,  and  recognises  no 
intermediate  classes.  We  do  not  see  it  to  be  so  in  the  ordinary 
mixture  and  confusion  of  human  life,  but  in  the  abstract  and 
in  the  essence  of  things,  so  it  is.  To  God,  though  not  to 
men,  it  is  possible  to  write  the  epitaph  of  each  life  in  the  brief 
words,  "He  did  that  which  was  good,"  or  "he  did  that  which 
was  evil"  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord. 

On  the  dread  severity  of  this  language,  on  the  only  possi- 
ble explanation  and  alleviation  of  it,  I  have  already  dwelt.' 
The  ideal  truth  must  ever,  so  to  speak,  float  above  its  actual 
realisation.  But  the  warning  force  of  St.  John's  high  words 
lies  in  ////V.- — We  are  children  of  God  by  birth  and  by  gift,  but 
unless  we  also  approve  ourselves  as  His  children  by  act  and 
life,  we  sink  out  of  that  sonship  into  Satanic  depths.  Every 
sin  we  commit  is  a  proof  that  we  are  not  yet  children  of  light, 
children  of  God;  but  that  darkness  still  has  power  over  us. 
For  each  such  defection  we  must  find  forgiveness,  and  against 
each  such  defection  we  must  strive  more  and  more.  A  child 
of  God,  as  Luther  says,  may  receive  daily  wounds  in  the  con- 
flict, but  he  never  throws  away  his  arms.  If  once  we  have 
fully  and  freely  dedicated  ourselves  to  God,  sin  may  some- 
times invade  us,  but  it  can  never  have  dominion  over  us.  Of 
the  two  seals  on  the  one  foundation — "God's  knowledge  of 
us  as  His  own,"  and  "Departure  from  iniquity" — where  the 
one  is  found,  the  other  will  be  never  wanting. 

The  demonstration  of  sonship,  then,  in  relation  to  God,  is 
"to  do  righteousness";  and  in  relation  to  man  this  righteous- 
ness is  manifested  by  loving  our  brethren,  which  he  illustrates 
first  negatively  (io<^— 15)  and  then  positively  (16—18). 

"  Every  one  who  doeth  not  righteousness  is  not  from  God,  nor  he  who  loveth 
not  his  brother.  Because  this  is  the  message  (aweAia,  A,  B,  &c.,)  which  ye  heard 
from  the  beginning,  in  order  that  Uva)  we  should  love  one  another ;  not  as  Cain 


1  Sec  supra,  pp.  599-601. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  631 

was  from  the  wicked  one.'  and  brutally  slew  his  brother.  And  why  did  he 
brutally  slay  him  ?  Because  his  deeds  were  evil,  but  those  of  his  brother  righte- 
ous. Wonder  not,  brethren,  if  the  world  hates  you.  We  know  that  we  have 
passed  from  death  unto  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren.^  He  who  loveth  not 
abideth  in  death.  Every  one  who  hateth  his  brother  is  a  murderer,^  and  ye 
know  that  no  murderer  hath  eternal  life  abiding  in  him  "  (iii.  iO(5— 15).    . 

Our  duty  to  man  follows  as  an  immediate  corollary  from 
our  duty  to  God,  just  as  the  second  table  of  the  Decalogue 
follows  naturally  as  an  inference  from  the  first.  No  doubt  in 
thus  exhorting  to  brotherly  love,  St.  John  is  thinking  in  the 
first  place  of  the  Churches  which  he  is  addressing,  and  there- 
fore by  "brother"  he  primarily  means  Christian.  But  to  con- 
fine his  meaning  to  Christian  brethren  would  be  to  wrong  the 
majesty  of  his  teaching.  It  would  also  dwarf  all  that  our 
Lord  taught  on  the  same  subject — as,  for  instance,  in  the  par- 
able of  the  Good  Samaritan;  and  the  force  of  Christ's  own 
example  who  loved  us  and  died  for  us  while  we  were  yet  sin- 
ners. And  to  miss  the  truth  that  love  is  the  very  central  com- 
mand of  Christianity — though  that  truth  has  been  missed  for 
centuries  —  though  Church  parties  in  their  narrow  and  en- 
venomed controversies  daily  prove  how  utterly  they  have 
missed  it — though  all  kinds  of  glozing  self-deceptions  are 
practised  to  persuade  the  conscience  that  violations  of  it  are 
7/^/ violations  of  it,  but  are  "uncompromising  faithfulness" 
and  "burning  zeal" — yet  to  miss  that  truth  is  inexcusable,  for 
it  was  delivered  from  the  first,  and  is  repeated  continually. 
It  was,  as  the  Apostle  tells  us,  at  once  the  matter  ("this  is  the 
message")  and  the  purpose  ("in  order  that  ye  may  love  one 
another")  of  the  Christian  revelation. 

In  his  usual  manner  of  illustrating  by  opposites,  St.  John 
impresses  the  duty  by  showing  the  frightfulness  of  hatred,  of 
which  he  selects  Cain  as  an  example,  because  it  is  the  earliest 
and  one  of  the  worst.  The  word  which  he  uses  for  the  mur- 
der— (^icrcfia^ev,  "he  butchered") — perhaps  refers  to  some  Jew- 
ish legend  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  murder  had  been 
accomplished.  The  instance  was  peculiarly  apposite,  because 
the  murder  was  but  the  ripened  fruit  of  a  secret  envy  caused 
by  God's  approval  of  good  works  in  another.  It  was,  there- 
fore, well  adapted  to  show  the  nature  of  the  world's  hatred  to 
the  Church,  and  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  hatred  belongs  to 
the»vorld — that  is,  to  the  realm  of  Satan  and  of  darkness — • 

'  /.f.,  "  Let  us  not  be  of  the  wicked  one  as  Cain  was,  who,"  etc.  The  construction  is  con- 
densed, as  in  I  Cor.  x.  8.  Some  of  the  Rabbis  said  that  "Cain  was  a  son  of  Eve  and  the 
Serpent"  (Zohar). 

2  "  Hona  opera  non  praecedunt  justiticandum  sed  seqnunttir  jiistificatum  "  (Aug.). 

3  Conip.  .Seneca's  '"Latro  es  antequam  inqiiines  nianuin." 


632  THK    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

and  should  therefore  be  utterly  excluded  from  the  Kingdom 
of  Light  and  of  Christ.  Let  not  the  Church  be  as  Cain-like 
as  the  world.  For  hatred  means  death,  and  we  have  passed 
from  death  into  life,  as  our  love  to  the  brethren  shows.'  On 
the  other  hand,  if — though  we  call  ourselves  Christians — we 
still  hate,  we  are  still  in  death.  For  all  hatred  is  potential 
murder;  it  is  murder  in  the  undeveloped  germ;  and  it  is  im- 
possible to  conceive  a  murderer  as  having  in  him  that  divine, 
that  spiritual  life  which  alone  corresponds  to  St.  John's  use 
of  the  word  "eternal." 

Passing  from  the  negative  to  the  positive  illustration,  he 
continues: — 

"  Hereby  we  have  learnt  to  know  what  love  is — because  He,  on  our  behalf, 
pledged  His  life  ;  and  we  ought  to  pledge  our  lives  for  the  brethren.  But  who- 
ever hath  this  world's  sustenance,  and  contemplates  iOeupfi)  his  brother  suffering 
want,  and  locks  up  from  him  his  pity, 2  how  doth  the  love  of  God  abide  in  him  ? 
Let  us  not  love  with  word  nor  yet  with  tongue, ^  but  in  deed  and  in  truth  "  ^  (iii. 
16—18). 

Cain  has  furnished  the  most  awful  warning  against  hatred. 
There  can  be  but  one  example,  which  is  the  most  emphatic 
exhortation  to  love — namebr.  He  who  loved  even  His  enemies, 
and  proved  His  love  for  them  by  His  death.  Cain  slew  his 
l;>rother  because  he  hated  him  for  his  goodness;  Christ  died  for 
sinners  because  He  loved  them  in  their  iniquity.  The  phrase 
rendered  in  the  English  version,  "He  laid  down  His  life,"  is 
found  in  St.  John  only,  but  it  is  one  of  which  he  is  specially 
fond.^  He  borrows  it  from  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  and 
it  is  therefore  coloured  in  all  probability  by  Hebrew  analogies. 
If  the  reference  be  to  Isaiah  liii.  lo,  it  involves  the  conception 
of  laying  down  life  as  a  pledge,  a  stake,  a  compensation.  We 
ought  to  do  the  same  according  to  the  measure  of  need.  But 
how  can  any  man  do  this  who  grudges,  or  coldly  ignores,  the 
simplest,  most  initial,  most  instinctive  acts  of  kindness  to  his 
suffering  brethren? — who,  like  the  fastidious  Priest  and  the 
icy-hearted  Levite  of  the  parable,  can  coldly  stare  at  his 
brother's  need,  and  bolt  against  him  the  treasure-house  of  natu- 
ral pity?  How  can  the  man  who  thus  shows  that  he  has  no  love 
in  him,  love  God  who  is  all  love?  Thus  we  see  that  with  St. 
John,  as  with  St.  Paul,  the  loftiest  principles  lead  to  the  hum- 

/ .  ,'  ^5'"'^.  '''5^'".  ^<^  ^^^'c  <hc  double  fact  of  a  warning  accompanied  by  the  assertion  that 
{trteally)M  is  quite  needless. 

-  (TTtkayxvo-  rnduiiu'nit,  I'rnv.  xii,  10  (tender  mercies). 

3  ••  Scrmune  oiiuso,  lingua  siniulantc"  (Bengel). 

*  M^  MOi  ai/i;p -yAwtro-T)  "^  <<)iAo?  dAAa  jcal  epyto  l^tpfT'iv  Te  o-rrewSoi  xP'JMacri  t"  a/at^drepa 
(Thcopnis)  ;   "  Vc  knot  of  wow//i-friends"  (Shaksp.,  Thnou  of  Athens). 

'  John  X.  II,  15,  17,  18  ;  xiii.  37,  38  ;  xv.  13. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  633 

blest  duties,  and  even  as  it  takes  the  wliole  law  of  gravitation 
to  mould  a  tear  no  less  than  to  shape  a  planet,  so  the  element 
or  obligation  of  kindness  to  the  suffering  is  made  to  rest  on 
the  infinite  basis  that  God  is  Love.  The  man  who  is  capable 
of  such  unnatural  hardness  as  St.  John  describes,  is  quite 
capable  of  the  hypocrisy  of  profession.  Like  the  vain  talker 
in  St.  James  (ii.  16),  he  will  doubtless  tell  the  sufferer  how 
much  he  pities  him;  he  will  say  to  him,  with  a  fervour  of  com- 
passion, "Be  warmed,"  "Be  clothed,"  but  he  has  ten  thou- 
sand cogent  and  ready  excuses  to  show  why  he  cannot  person- 
ally render  him  any  assistance.  For  such  lip-charity,  such 
mere  pleasantly-emotional  pity,  such  eloquent  babble  of  hard- 
heartedness,  wearing  the  cloak  of  compassion,  he  warns  them 
to  substitute  the  activity  and  reality  of  love. 

The  recapitulation  which  follows  is  extremely  difficult,  and 
all  the  more  so  because  the  punctuation  is  uncertain,  the  con- 
struction unusual,  the  readings  unsettled.  I  give  the  render- 
ing which,  on  the  whole,  approves  itself  to  my  mind,  but  I  am 
far  from  certain  that  it  is  correct.  Other  versions  and  other 
interpretations  are  almost  equally  tenable,  and  I  incline  to  the 
view  that  there  is  either  some  corruption  in  the  text,  or  that 
some  confusion  may  have  arisen  in  the  dictation  of  the  Epis- 
tle. The  difficulty  in  interpreting  the  words  of  St.  John  is 
ahnost  always  the  difficulty  of  fathoming  the  true  depth  of  his 
phrases  —  the  difficulty  of  understanding  the  full  spiritual 
meaning  of  his  words.  His  style  is,  for  the  most  part,  incom- 
parable in  its  lucidity,  and  there  must  be  sojiie  disturbing  ele- 
ment which  renders  it  impossible  in  the  next  two  verses  to  be 
at  all  sure  that  we  have  ascertained  what  he  meant,  or  even 
what  he  said. 

"And  hereby  shall  we  recognise  that  we  are  of  the  truth,  and  we  shall  in  His 
sight  assure  our  hearts  :i  because  if  our  heart  condemn  us,  [because]  God  is 
greater  than  our  heart,  and  recogniseth  all  things  "2  (iii.  19,  20). 


'  ireiiToiJLev  seems  to  mean  we  shall  still  the  questionings  of  our  hearts  ;  persuade  them  that 
the  view  which  they  take  of  our  frailties  is  too  despairing.  Haupt's  rendering,  ''we  shall 
soothe"  only  lies  in  the  context,  not  in  the  word  (comp.  Acts  xii.  20,  n-etVai'Tes  BAaoro;'  ;  E. 
v.,  'having  made  WiS^sX-ViS,  their  friend  ;"   Gal.  i.  10). 

2  I  cannot  at  all  accept  the  version  of  Haupt,  or  his  explanation  of  this  extremely  difficult 
passage.  He  takes  it  to  mean,  "  In  this  love  rests  our  consciousness  that  we  are  of  the  truth, 
and  by  it  may  we  soothe  our  hearts,  in  all  cases  in  ivhich  (on  ^av)  our  heart  condemns  us, 
for  God  is  greater  than  our  hearts  and  knoweth  all  things."  The  difficulty  lies  partly  in  the 
repented  OTt.  If  the  first  on  means  "because,"  the  second  must  also  mean  "  because,"  and 
this  gives  a  very  awkward  clause,  and  makes  no  good  sense.  I  therefore  take  the  view  of  the 
old  .scholiast,  who  says  "  the  second  on  is  superfluous  "  (to  Sevrepov  on  Trape'A/cei) .  We  find 
a  similar  instance  of  on  repeated  in  Eph.  ii.  11,  12,  and  in  classic  writers  (Xen.  Anab.  v.  16,  § 
19,  "They  say  that  if  not  .  .  .  that  he  will  run  a  risk").  If  it  be  thought  an  insuperable 
objection  that  in  these  instances  on  always  means  "  that"  and  not  "  because,"  I  can  only  sup- 
pose that  the  second  on  is  really  a  confusion  due  to  dictation.  I  take  the  consolatory',  not  the 
dark  view  of  the  passage.     I  think  that  St.  John  meant  us  to  regard  it  as  a  subject  of  hope. 


634  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

"Beloved,  if  our  heart  condemn  us  not  we  have  confidence  towards  God  ; 
and  whatsoever  we  ask  we  receive  from  Him,  because  we  are  keeping  His  com- 
mandments, and  are  doing  the  things  which  are  acceptable  before  Him.  And 
this  is  His  commandment,  that  we  should  believe  in  the  name  of  His  Son,  Jesus 
Christ,  and  love  one  another  even  as  He  gave  us  commandment.  And  he  who 
keepet'h  His  commandments  abideth  in  Him,  and  He  in  him  "  (iii.  21—24^). 

Assuming  that  the  reading  which  I  have  followed  in  the 
first  two  verses  of  this  passage  is  correct,  and  the  g?'a?nmatical 
construction  admissible,  the  meaning  will  be  simple.  It  is  that 
Brotherly  Love  is  a  proof  that  we  belong  to  the  kingdom  of 
EternaLReality,  and  that  by  this  assurance  we  shall  ever  be 
able  to  still  the  misgivings  of  our  hearts.  For  even  if  the  in- 
dividual heart  of  each  one  of  us  knoweth  its  own  bitterness 
and  condemns  itself,  still,  since  we  are  sincere,  and  have  given 
proof  of  our  sincerity  by  love  to  the  brethren,  we  may  fall 
back  on  the  love  and  mercy  of  One  who  is  greater,  and  there- 
fore more  tender,  than  our  self-condemning  hearts.  He  will 
"count  the  long  Yes  of  life"  against  its  one  No,  or  its  guilty 
moment.  Because  He  recogniseth  all  things — because,  know- 
ing all  things,  He  recognises  that  we  do  love  Him' — because, 
where  sin  abounded  there  grace  much  more  abounded^ — be- 
cause, as  Luther  said,  the  conscience  is  but  a  waterdrop, 
whereas  God  is  a  deep  sea  of  compassion — therefore  He  will 
look  upon  us 

"  With  larger  other  eyes  than  ours, 
To  make  allowance  for  us  all." 

But  if  our  heart  condemn  us  not  of  v/ilful  failure  in  gene- 
ral obedience  or  in  brotherly  love — if  we  can,  by  God's  grace, 
say  with  St.  Paul,  "I  am  not  conscious  of  any  wrong-doing" 
— then,  when  faith  has  triumphed  over  a  self-condemning  de- 
spair— we  have  that  confidence  towards  God  of  which  St.  John 
spoke  at  the  beginning  of  this  section  (ii.  28),  and  are  also 
sure  that  God  will  grant  our  prayers,  both  personal — that  we 
may  ever  more  and  more  do  the  thing  that  is  right — and  in- 
tercessory— that  His  love  may  be  poured  forth  on  our  brethren 
also.  And  thus  shall  we  fulfil  the  commandments  to  believe 
and  to  love.  These  two  commandments  form  the  summary 
,of  all  God's  commandments:  for  the  one  is  the  inward  spirit 
of  obedience,  the  other  its  outward  form.  He  who  thus  keeps 
•God's  commandments,  abides  in  God  and  God  in  him. 


not  o[  despair^  that  God  is  greater  than  our  hearts.  This  certainly  is  most  in  accordance  with 
lohn  xxi.  17—"  Lord,  Thou  knowest  all  things  :  Thou  knowest  that  1  love  Thee."  It  would 
be  useless  to  repeat  the  tediously  voluminous  varieties  of  exposition  which  have  been  applied  to 
tlic  passaKe.  ['I'he  Revised  Version  renders  it,  "  and  shall  assure  our  heart  before  Him, 
whereinsoever  our  heart  condemn  us."] 

'  John  XXI.  17,  »fi5pie  ah  itavja  olSa?,  av  yiyruio'/feis  on  (/>iA(o  o"£.  2  Rom.  v.  20. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  635 

The  thoughts  of  the  writer  in  these  verses  are  evidently 
.filled  with  the  last  discourses  of  the  Lord,  which  he  has  just 
recorded  in  the  Gospel,  and  which  he  may  assume  to  be  fresh 
in  the  minds  of  his  readers.  In  these  verses  he  dwells  on  the 
same  topics — faith,  love,  prayer,  union  with  God,  the  Holy 
Spirit.  In  this  clause  he  concludes  the  section,  which  has 
been  devoted  to  the  proof  that  Doing  Righteousness  and  Love 
of  the  brethren  are  the  practical  signs  that  we  are  sons  of 
God.  In  the  second  clause  of  verse  24 — which  would  better 
have  been  placed  at  the  head  of  the  next  chapter — he  passes 
to  two  new  thoughts,  which  form  the  basis  of  his  proof  that 
the  source  of  our  sonship  is  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  God,  and  therefore  that  our  confidence  towards  God  [irap- 
pi^croca,  ii.  28;  iii.  21;  iv.  17,  18)  may  be  absolute,  even  to  the 
end. 

SECTION   III. 

THE    SOURCE    OF   SONSHIP. 

"And  hereby  we  recognise  that  He  abideth  in  iis,  from  the  Spirit  which  He 
gave  us.  Beloved,  beheve  not  every  spirit,  but  test  the  spirits  whether  they  are 
from  God,  because  many  false  prophets  have  gone  forth  into  the  world.  Here- 
by ye  recognise  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  every  spirit  which  confesseth  Jesus  as  Christ 
come  in  the  flesh  from  God,  and  every  spirit  which  severeth  Jesvis  is  not  from 
God,  and  this  is  the  spirit  of  Antichrist  of  which  ye  have  heard  that  it  cometh, 
and  now  is  it  in  the  world  already.  Ye  are  from  God,  little  children  ;  and  ye 
have  overcome  them  because  greater  is  He  who  is  in  you  than  he  who  is  in  the 
world.  They  are  from  the  world  ;  for  this  cause  they  speak  from  the  world,  and 
the  world  heareth  them.  We  are  from  God  ;  he  who  learns  to  know  God  heareth 
us  ;  he  who  is  not  from  God  heareth  not  us.'  From  this  we  recognise  the  spirit 
of  truth  and  the  spirit  of  error  "  (iii.  24,^ — iv.  6). 

The  change  of  phrase  from  "abide  in  Him"  (ii.  28)  to 
"He  abideth  in  us,"  and  the  introduction  of  the  new  thought 
involved  in  the  mention  of  the  Spirit,  mark  the  beginning  of 
a  new  clause.  The  subject  of  this  clause  is  at  once  stated  in 
the  words  "we  recognise  that  He  abideth  in  us."  We  are 
passing  from  the  fesfs  of  sonship  to  the  scmrce  of  sonship. 
Following  the  same  method  of  division  which  we  have  already 
found  in  the  previous  sections  of  the  Epistle,  the  Apostle 
treats  of  this  subject  first  in  relation  to  God  in  Christ  (iv.  i — 
6),  and  then  in  relation  to  our  brother-man  (7 — 12).  He  who 
rightly  confesses  God  in  Christ,  and  who  proves  the  sincerity 
of  that  faith  by  love  to  the  brethren,  do€s  so  by  the  sole  aid 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  and  it  is  thus  proved  that  he  is 
born  of  God. 

1  "  For  this  have  I  been  born,  and  for  this  have  I  come  into  the  world,  that  I  should  testify 
to  tlie  'i'ruth.     Every  one  who  is  of  the  Truth  heareth  my  voice"  (John  xviii.  37). 


C)^G  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

This  possession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  this  abiding  of  God  in 
us,  is  first  illustrated  by  its  opposite.  The  denial  of  Christ 
is  a  sign  that  we  are  under  the  sway  of  spirits  which  are  not 
from  God,  even  the  spirits  of  false  prophecy  and  of  Antichrist. 
The  characteristic  of  the  men  whom  these  spirits  deceive  is  to 
deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them,^  and  to  apostatise  from  the 
worship  of  Christ  to  the  worship  of  the  Beast. '-^  That  such 
spirits  were  at  work  even  thus  early  we  have  already  seen  in 
the  warnings  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Jude.  And  the 
peril  which  they  caused  was  enhanced  by  this;  they  were  at 
work  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church  itself.  When  St.  John  says 
that  they  have  gone  forth  into  the  world,  he  does  not  mean 
that  they  are  severed  from  the  Church,  for  if  this  had  been 
the  case  there  would  have  been  no  need  to  test  them,  or  to  be 
on  guard  against  them,  since,  as  regards  the  Christian  com- 
munity, they  would  have  stood  self-condemned.  But  while 
still  nominally  belonging  to  the  visible  Church,  the  nature  of 
their  teaching  stamped  them  as  belonging  really  to  the  world. 
Every  Christian,  therefore,  had  need  to  "test  the  spirits;"  he 
was  required  to  exercise  that  grace  of  "the  discernment  of 
spirits"  to  which  St.  Paul  had  called  the  attention  of  his  Cor- 
inthian converts.^  In  Corinth  the  terrible  abuses  of  glossolaly 
had  led  to  outbreaks  which  entirely  ruined  and  degraded 
the  order  of  worship.  Amid  the  hubbub  of  fanatical  utter- 
ances voices  had  even  been  heard  to  exclaim  "Anathema  is 
Jesus."  Those  hideous  blasphemies,  due  to  secret  hatred 
and  heresy,  had  sheltered  themselves  under  the  plea  of  un- 
controllable spiritual  impulse,  and  St.  Paul  had  laid  down  as 
distinctly  as  St.  John,  and  almost  in  the  same  terms,  that  the 
confession  of  Jesus  as  Lord  could  only  come  from  the  work- 
ings of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  any  one  who  spoke 
against  Jesus,  however  proud  his  claims,  could  not  be  speak- 
ing by  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  interesting  to  find  the  two 
Apostles  so  exactly  in  accord  with  one  another.  It  is  even 
difficult  to  imagine  that  St.  John  could  have  written  this 
l)assage  without  having  iq  mind  what  St.  Paul  had  said  to 
the  Corinthians.''  But  even  if  not,  we  have  another  proof 
how  absurd  is  the  theory  which  places  the  two  Apostles  in 
deadly  antagonism,  whereas  again  and  again  there  is  a  close 
resemblance  between  them,  not  only  in  the  expressions  which 
they  use,  but  also  in  the  entire  systems  which  they  maintain. 

Here,  then,  was  to  be  the  test  which  each  Christian  could 


'aPet.  U.2.  2Rev.  xiii.  8. 

'  »  Cor.  xn.  lo.  4  ,  Cor.  .xii.  3. 


THE    FIRST   EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JOHN.  6lJ 

apply.  Every  spirit  was  of  God  who  confessed  ''Jesus  Christ 
coHie  in  tJic  flesh.''  There  were  even  in  those  ecirly  days  profes- 
sing Christians  who  said  that  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Christ,  but 
that  the  Christ  had  not  come  in  the  flesh.  They  maintained 
that  during  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus,  the  spirit  of  the  Divine 
Christ  had  been  with  Him,  but  only  till  the  crucifixion;  so 
that  the  Incarnation  of  the  Divine  in  the  human  nature  was 
nothing  but  a  semblance.  These  were  the  forerunners  of  the 
sect  of  Docetists.  There  were  others,  again,  who  regarded 
the  life  of  Jesus  as  homogeneous  throughout,  but  denied  that 
he  was  the  Christ  in  any  other  sense  than  that  He  was  the 
Jewish  Messiah;  denied  that  he  was  Christ  in  the  sense  of 
being  the  Son  of  God.  These  were  the  early  Ebionites. 
Against  them  both  St.  John  had  erected  his  eternal  barrier 
of  sacred  testimony  when  he  wrote  '  'The  Word  became  flesh," 
a  testimony  which  he  here  repeats,  and  which  he  expresses  no 
less  plainly  in  verse  14,  when  he  says,  "We  have  seen  and  do 
testify  that  the  Father  has  sent  His  Son  as  Saviour  of  the 
World."  Every  spirit  was  from  God  which,  speaking  in  the 
mouths  of  Christian  prophets,  confessed  that  Jesus  who  was 
a  man  was  also  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God. 

The  next  verse  (3)  begins  in  the  Authorised  Version,  "And 
every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh  is  not  of  God."  The  first  correction  which  must  be 
made  to  bring  back  this  verse  to  the  true  reading  is  to  omit 
the  words  ''Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.''  Not  only  are  they 
omitted  by  the  Sinaitic,  Alexandrian,  and  Vatican  MSS.,  and 
absent  from  the  Vulgate,  Coptic,  and  ..4i^thiopic  versions,  but 
also  it  is  more  accordant  with  St.  John's  manner  to  vary  the 
form  of  his  antithetic  clauses.  The  meaning,  however,  re- 
mains the  same,  for  by  "confessing  Jesus"  nothing  can  be 
meant  but  confessing  that  He  is  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God. 
But  in  my  version  I  have  ventured  to  follow  the  other  read- 
ing, "Every  spirit  which  severs  Jesus"  (6  Avet).  It  is  a 
reading  of  deep  interest,  and  one  which,  if  it  be  genuine, 
proves  very  decidedly  the  working  of  those  Gnostic  specula- 
tions— at  least  in  their  germs — which  is  also  presupposed  in 
the  later  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  authenticity  of  those 
Epistles  has  often  been  denied,  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
devoted  to  the  refutation  of  heresies  which,  it  is  asserted,  had 
no  existence  till  at  least  the  second  century.  I  have  already 
endeavoured  to  show  that  there  is  no  weight  in  this  argu- 
ment;' but  if  the  reading  "which  severs  Jesus"  be  indeed  the 

^  See  my  Life  of  St.  Paul.  ii.  620, 


638  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

original  one,  it  furnishes  the  clearest  indication  of  the  direc- 
tion taken  from  the  first  by  Gnostic  error.'  The  Docetae  and 
Ebionites  had  already  begun  to  "sever  Jesus" — to  say  that 
He  was  a  man  to  whom  for  a  time  only  the  Spirit  of  God  had 
been  united,  or  that  He  was  a  man  only  and  not  the  Son  of 
God  at  all. 

It  need,  however,  be  hardly  said  that  the  interesting  char- 
acter of  a  reading  furnishes  no  ground  for  accepting  it.  But 
we  are  under  no  temptation  to  introduce  it  on  dogmatic 
grounds,  seeing  that  even  without  it  we  have  sufficient  indica- 
tion of  the  existence  of  these  sects. 

At  first  sight  it  might  seem  to  be  fatal  to  the  reading  that 
it  is  not  found  in  any  existing  manuscript.  This  fact  must  per- 
haps suffice  to  exclude  it  from  any  accepted  text  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  yet  this  seems  to  me  to  be  exactly  one  of  those 
cases  in  which  the  reading  of  the  existing  MSS.  is  outweighed 
by  other  authorities  and  other  considerations."  In  the  first 
place,  the  reading  is  found  in  the  Vulgate.  Then,  Socrates, 
the  ecclesiastical  historian,  tells  us  that  Nestorius  "was  igno- 
rant that  in  the  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  Catholic  Epistle  of 
John  it  had  been  written  thaX^  'Every  spirit  which  severs  Jesus 
is  not  from  God.'  "^  He  adds,  that  those  who  wished  to  sever 
the  Divitiity  of  Jesus  from  His  Humanity,  "took  away  this 
sense  (ravz-qv  TTjv  Siavotav  Ik  tu)V  iraXd'nnv  avTLypd(fnxiV  7r€/7t€i/\ov)  from 
the  ancient  manuscripts."  How  Diisterdieck  and  others  can 
here  maintain  that  Socrates  does  not  mean  to  assert  that  the 
reading  "severs  Jesus"  was  actually  found  in  these  old  man- 
uscripts, is  more  than  I  can  understand.  There  is  no  other 
reason  for  mentioning  the  manuscripts  at  all.  Socrates  clearly 
means  to  charge  the  Nestorians  with  the  falsification  of  the 
text.  Irenaeus  also,  in  denying  all  claim  of  Christian  ortho- 
doxy to  those  who,  under  pretence  of  ^//^i-zV,  drew  distinctions 
between  Jesus  and  Christ,  between  the  Only  Begotten  and  the 
Saviour,  refers  to  this  passage  and  quotes  it,  "Et  omnis  spiri- 
tus  QUI  SOLVIT  Jesum  non  est  ex  Deo."*  Origen,  again,  on 
Matt.  XXV.  14,  quotes  the  verse  in  the  same  way,  and  adds 
"we  thus  reserve  for  each  substance  its  own  proper  attri- 
butes."'    Again,  Tertullian,  in  referring  to  the  first,  second, 

'  See  su/irn,  p.  575. 

2  To  express  the  s.nmc  thing  technically,  the  diplomatic  is  outweighed  by  the  paradif>lo- 
iiintic  evidence. 

3  !7yf6i)a'{»'  oTt  tv  Tg  Ka^oAitcn  'Iwai/cov  eyeypaTrro  iv  rots  rraAaiots  avriypa^ois  on  itav 
nvevixa  6  Xvarbv  'lr)aovv  k.t.K.  (Socmtes,  //.  A",  vii.  32).  ^  hen.  c.  Hner.  iii.  8. 

*  "  H.icc  mtem  dicenies  non  soi.viMUS  suscepti  corporis  hominem,  cum  sit  scriptum  apud 
Joannein,  '  Onniis  Spiritus  qui  solvit  Jesum  non  est  ex  Deo,'  sed  unicuique  substantiae  pro- 
pnctattm  servainus  "  (Origen,  /.  c). 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF  ST.    JOHN.  639 

and  third  verses  of  this  chapter,  sums  them  up  in  the  words 
"Joannes  Apostolus  ....  antichristos  (\\c\t proccsssisse 
iti  niunduin  (verse  i)  .  .  .  .  negantes  Christum  /;/  cartie 
venisse  (verse  2),  et  solvnifes  Jesum"  (verse  3).'  Once  more, 
St.  Augustine  has  the  expression,  "He  severs  Jesus,  and 
denies  that  He  has  come  in  the  flesh."  Against  these  testi- 
monies— unmistakable  as  they  are — it  is  usual  to  urge  the  sup- 
posed silence  of  Polycarp,  who,  in  his  letter  to  the  Philip- 
})ians,  says,  "but  every  one  who  does  not  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  Antichrist."  Clearly,  however, 
this  may  be  a  general  reference  to  the  second  vers-^,  and  fur- 
nishes no  proof  that  the  reading  "severs"  may  not  have  oc- 
curred in  this  third  verse  even  in  Polycarp's  time.  That  he 
should  not  quote  it  is  sufficiently  accounted  for  by  its  diffi- 
cult3^  There  is  a  compression  in  it  which  requires  explana- 
tion. It  involved  a  profound  and  prescient  allusion  to  heresies 
which  as  yet  were  vague  and  undeveloped.  It  needed  for  its 
full  understanding  the  light  which  was  to  be  thrown  upon  it 
by  subsequent  history,  when  heresy  after  heresy  was  occupied 
in  * 'severing  '  the  One  Person,  or  isolating  one  or  other  of  the 
Two  Natures.  When  we  consider  the  proofs  that  the  reading 
did  really  exist  in  early  texts;  that  there  was  every  temptation 
to  add  explanatory  glosses  to  explain  its  difficulty;  that  it  was 
easy  for  such  an  explanatory  gloss  as  ''does  not  confess''  to 
creep  in  from  the  previous  text;  that  the  explanatory  gloss 
"Christ  come  in  the  flesh"  has  actually  so  crept  in;  that  the  later 
addition  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the  need  of  explaining  the 
words  "who  does  not  confess  Jesus,"  words  which  by  them- 
selves gave  no  adequate  meaning;  that,  lastly,  it  is  St.  John's 
almost  invariable  manner — a  manner  founded  on  the  laws  of 
the  Hebrew  parallelism  in  which  he  had  been  trained — to  in- 
troduce into  the  second  clause  of  his  antitheses  some  weighty 
additional  element  of  thought; — when  we  remember,  lastly, 
what  force  there  is  in  this  old  reading — what  a  flash  of  insight 
it  involves — then  wx  may  be  reasonably  confident  that  it  repre- 
sents what  St.  John  really  wrote.  Nothing  but  its  difficulty 
led  to  its  early  obliteration  from  the  common  texts.  We  have, 
then,  this  result: — that ///^  disintegration  of  the  divine  and  the 
Jiunian  in  the  nature  of  Jesus  was  the  distinguishing  character- 
sitic  of  the  spirit  of  Antichrist.  It  is,  he  adds,  the  spirit  which 
speaks  out  of  worldly  inspiration,  and  meets  with  worldly  ap- 
proval; but  they  who  are  of  God  have  prevailed  over  the  Anti- 


'  Ten.  adv.  Marc.  v.  16,  and  adv.  Psych.,  ''^ guod  Jesum  C/tiistuiit  solvant.'' 


640  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

christs  by  holding  fast — unshaken,  unseduced,  unterrilied— 
their  good  confession. 

The  power  to  make  this  good  confession  comes  from  the 
Spirit  of  God;  and  so  also  does  the  power  to  love  our  brethren. 

"  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another.  For  Love  is  from  God,  and  every  one 
that  loveth  hath  been  born  of  God,  and  recogniseth  God.  He  that  loveth  not 
never  recognised  God,  because  God  is  lovc.^  Herein  was  the  love  of  God  mani-  . 
fested  in  us,  that  God  hath  sent  His  Son,  His  only  begotten,  into  the  world,  that 
we  may  live  by  Him.  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  He  loved 
us,  and  sent  His  Son  as  a  propitiation  for  our  sins.  Beloved,  if  thus  God  loved 
lis,  we  also  ought  to  love  one  another.  God  no  one  has  ever  seen.  If  we  love 
one  another  God  abideth  in  us,  and   His  love  has  been  perfected  in  us  "  (iv. 

7-12). 

In  the  deep  language  of  St.  John,  the  recognition  of  God 
— the  learning  to  know  Him  (yiyvwo-Kav) — is  a  much  greater  at- 
tainment than  merely  knowing  about  Him,  and  having  heard 
of  Him.  "The  knowledge  of  the  Divine  involves  a  spiritual 
likeness  to  the  Divine,  and  rests  upon  a  possession  of  the 
Divine."  And  this  possession  of  the  Divine  emanates  in  love; 
love  must  of  necessity  radiate  from  its  central  light.  The 
hatred  which  wells  from  a  fountain  of  inward  darkness  proves 
at  once  that  the  knowledge  and  love  of  God  does  not  exist  in 
the  heart  of  him  who  hates.  His  hatred  is  the  more,  not  the 
less,  guilty  if  it  tries  to  hide  itself  under  a  cloak  of  religiousness. 
For  God  is  Love.  If  Light  be  His  metaphysical  essence,  Love 
is  His  ethical  nature.  The  unfathomable  and  inconceivable 
fulness  of  life  which  is  named  Light  is,  from  eternity  to  eternity, 
existent  only  under  the  form  of  Love.  If,  then,  God  is  Love, 
everything  which  He  does  must  have  love  for  its  sole  aim,  and 
must,  therefore,  be  a  communication  of  Himself.  Every  one 
who  knows  Him  is  born  of  Him,  for  "Him  truly  to  know  is 
life  eternal;"  and  every  one  who  is  born  of  Him  is  a  child  of 
Light,  and  reflects  His  Light  in  the  form  of  love.  For  He 
has  sent  His  Son  into  the  world  to  give  us  life;  and  this  life 
manifests  itself  in  us  as  love,  which  is  thus  of  its  very  nature 
Divine.  The  love  we  are  enabled  to  show  is  not  earthly,  not 
human,  not  animal,  it  is  Divine.  It  is  an  effluence  of  the 
Love  of  God  poured  into  our  hearts,  and  streaming  forth  from 
them  upon  others.  St.  John  is  not  here  speaking  of  the  mere 
slightly  expanded  egotism  of  family  affections,  or  personal 
likings;  he  is  speaking  of  Christian  love,  of  the  love  of  man 
as  man.     That  love  is  a  flame  from  the  Divine  flame.     Christ 


'  See  Aug.  de  Trinitate,  ix.  2.  "  God  is  I.ove,"  a  sentence  which  is  the  summary  and 
most  simple  expression  of  what  the  Scripture— the  whole  Scripture— teaches  us  throughout 
(Hofmann). 


THE   FIRST    EPISTLE    OF   ST.    JOHN,  641 

rendered  it  possible  when  He  died  as  a  propitiation /^r  us;  it 
becomes  actual  when  He  is  Christ  in  us.  When  we  possess 
the  Light  it  will  certainly  shine  before  men.  No  one  has  evtr 
seen  God;  our  fellowship  with  Him  is  not  visible.  Hut  it  is 
much  nearer,  for  it  is  spiritual.  He  is  not  onl}^  with  us,  He 
is  in  us;  and,  therefore,  His  Love,  in  all  its  perfection,  dwells 
within  us,  proving  its  existence  by  continuous  love  to  all  our 
brethren,  whether  in  the  Church  or  in  the  world. 


Then  follows  the  summary  of  the  last  two  sections: — 

"Hereby  we  recognise  that  we  abide  in  Him,  and  He  in  us,  because  He 
hath  given  to  us  of  His  Spirit.  And  we  have  beheld,  and  bear  witness  that  the 
Father  hath  sent  the  Son  as  a  Saviour  of  the  world.  He  who  has  confessed  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  abideth  in  him,  and  he  in  God.  And  we  have 
learnt  to  know  and  have  believed  the  love  which  God  hath  in  us.  God  is  Love, 
and  he  who  abideth  in  love  abideth  in  God,  and  God  in  him  "  (iv,  13—16). 

These  verses  state  the  conclusion  to  which  the  Apostle  has 
led  us — namely,  that  neither  confession  of  Christ  nor  love  to 
the  brethren  are  possible  without  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  God.  If,  then,  we  have  so  confessed  Christ,  and  if  we 
love  the  brethren,  we  have  received  the  Spirit  of  God,  and, 
therefore,  have  fellowship  with  God,  and  are  His  sons.  We 
abide  in  Him,  and  He  in  us.  It  only  remains  to  show  that 
this  gives  us  the  confidence  (rrapprjaLa)  of  which  he  had  spoken 
in  ii.  28,  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  entire  section. 

"  By  this  "  (i.e.  by  all  that  I  have  now  urged  >)  "love  hath  been  perfected 
with  us, 2  in  order  that  we  may  have  confidence  in  the  day  of  judgment,  because 
as  He  (Christ)  is,  we  also  are' in  this  world.  There  is  no  fear  in  love,  but  per- 
fect love  casteth  out  fear,  because  fear  hath  punishment,  but  he  that  feareth 
hath  not  been  perfected  in  love  " '•>  (iv.  17,  18). 

The  best  comment  on  the  first  of  these  verses  will  be  found 
in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  in  John  xvii.  14 — 26.  If  we 
have  the  fellowship  with  God  of  which  he  has  spoken,  then, 
though  the  Church  is  still  in  the  world,  we  have  become  like 
Christ,  and  may  answer  with  boldness  on  the  Judgment  Day. 
For,  just  as  we  are  condemned  already  if,  by  not  believing, 
we  have  rejected  the  Light  for  the  darkness — so,  if  we  have 

1  €v  TovTO),  as  in  ii.  6,  refers  to  what  precedes,  as  in  John  iv.  37,  xvi.  30. 

-  "With  us" — i.e.,  in  the  midst  of  the  Church.  '"  (iod  magnified  His  mercy  Tt'i//:  her 
(fxcT  aiirijs)"  (Luke  i.  58). 

3  "  We  received  not  the  spirit  of  slavery  again  to  fear,  but  ye  received  the  spirit  of  adop- 
tion "  (Rom.  viii.  15).  There  is,  of  course,  a  righteous  fear  (Ps.  xix.),  but  it  has  in  it  no 
alarm  or  terror.  'I'he  highest  state  of  all  is  to  be  without  fear,  and  with  love  ;  the  lowest  to  be 
"  with  fear,  but  without  love  ;  "  or,  without  either  fear  or  love  (see  Bcngcl,  ad  loc).  "'I'imor 
est  custos  ct  paedagogus  legis,  donee  vcniat  caritas"  (Aug.). 

41 


642  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

believed,  we  anticipate  the  sentence  of  acquittal.  Fear  is  in- 
separable from  the  self-condemnation  which  results  from  being 
separated  from  God;  it  is  an  anticipated  punishment;  it  can- 
not co-exist  with  love;  where  it  exists,  there  the  love  is  not 
real  love,  for  it  is  still  imperfect  and  impure. 


Thus,  then,  St.  John  has  completed  one  "great  part  of  his 
announced  design.  He  has  written  in  order  that  Christians 
may  have  fellowship  with  God,  and  fellowship  with  one  another, 
and  that  so  their  joy  may  be  full.  It  will  and  must  be  full  if 
they  have  perfect  confidence;  if,  being  at  one  with  God — they 
in  Him,  and  He  in  them — they  look  forward  with  perfect  con- 
fidence even  to  that  hour  when  they  shall  stand  at  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  God.  Here  he  might  have  closed  this  part  of  his 
subject;  but  in  one  last  retrospect  (iv.  19;  v.  5)  he  shows  that, 
though  hitherto  he  has  treated  of  our  relation  to  God  and  our 
relation  to  our  brethren  in  separate  sections,  the  two  relations 
are,  in  reality,  indissolubly  one.  And  for  this  purpose  he 
gathers  together  all  the  leading  conceptions  on  which  he  has 
been  dwelling — namely,  "believing  on  Christ"  (v.  5)  as  the 
principle  (positively)  of  "keeping  God's  commandments"  (v. 
2),  and  ('negatively)  of  "conquering  the  world"  (v.  4,  5),  and 
shows  that  they  find  their  unity  in  "loving  our  brother." 
From  love  Tiv.  19 — 21),  and  from  faith  (v.  i — 5),  spring  alike 
our  duty  to  God  our  Father,  and  our  duty  to  our  brother 
man. 

"Let  us  love,  because  He  first  loved  us.  If  any  one  say  I  love  God,  and 
hate  his  brother,  he  is  a  liar  :  for  any  one  who  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he 
hath  seen,  in  what  way  can  he  love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen  ?  And  this  com- 
mand we  have  from  Him,  that  he  who  loveth  God,  love  also  his  brother"  (iv, 
19—21). 

"  Every  one  who  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,'  has  been  born  of  God, 
and  every  one  who  loveth  Him  that  begat  loveth  also  Him  who  hath  been  be- 
gotten of  Him.  Hereby  we  recognise  that  we  love  the  children  of  God,  when 
we  love  God  and  do  His  commandments.  For  this  is  the  love  of  God,  that  we 
keep  His  commandments.     And  His  commandments  are  not  heavy, 2  because 


1  "  In  this  part  of  his  tre.itment,"  says  Bengel,  "  the  Apostle  skilfully  so  arranges  his  men- 
tion of  Love,  that  Faith  may  be  observed  at  the  close,  as  .he  prow  and  stern  of  the  whole  treat- 
ment." 

"  •*  My  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  light"  (Matt.  xi.  36).     "Da  quod  jiibes,  et  jube 

auod  vis"  (/\ug.).  "  His  commandments  are  not  grievous  because  love  makes  them  light; 
icy  are  not  grievous,  because  Christ  gives  strength  to  bear  them.  Wings  are  no  weight  to 
the  bird  which  ihey  lift  up  in  the  air  until  it  is  lost  in  the  sky  above  us,  and  we  see  it  no  more, 
and  hear  only  its  note  of  tlianks.  (iod's  commands  are  no  weight  to  the  soul,  which,  through 
His  Spiritj  He  upbears  to  Himself;  nay,  rather  the  soul  through  thcin  the  more  soars  aloft, 
and  loses  itself  in  the  Sonof  (lod  "  (Puscy). 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JOHN.  643 

everything  that  has  been  born  of  God  conquers  the  world.  And  this  is  the  vic- 
tory which  conquered  the  world — our  faith.'  Who  is  he  who  conquereth  the 
world,  except  he  who  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God?  "  (v.  i — 5). 

In  the  first  of  these  two  sections  he  exhorts  to  universal 
love,  and  shows  that,  since  God  is  Invisible,  there  are  no  pos- 
sible means  by  which  we  can  manifest  our  love  to  Him  except 
by  love  to  man,  in  whom  God  is  made  visible  for  us.  If  we 
neglect  these  means,  our  self-asserted  love  to  God,  since  it 
fails  to  meet  the  test  of  action,  can  be  nothing  but  a  lie.  For 
though  God  is  Unseen,  yet  His  Presence  is  represented  to  us 
by  man;  and,  again,  though  God  is  Unseen,  He  has  revealed 
to  us  His  will.  And  the  will  which  He  has  revealed,  the 
obedience  which  He  requires,  is,  that  we  love  one  another. 
Not  to  do  so  is  to  violate  His  commandment,  and  to  insult 
His  image;  and  he  who  acts  thus  cannot  love  Hhn.' 

In  the  second  clause  his  summary  consists  in  telling  us 
that  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  is  a  proof  of  our  sonship,  and, 
therefore,  can  only  issue  in  love  to  all  God's  other  children. 
If  we  are  loving  God,  and  obeying  Him,  we  cannot  fail  to 
recognise  in  this  very  love  and  obedience  that  they  are  being 
manifested  by  the  spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood.  It  is  faith 
which  won  the  victory  over  the  world;  and  faith  is  manifested 
in  love.  Thus  all  the  elements  of  thought  are  gathered  into 
one.  Sonship,  Faith,  Obedience,  conquest  of  the  world  are 
all  essentially  blended  into  an  organic  unity;  and  Love  is  at 
once  the  result  of  their  existence  and  the  proof  that  they  exist. 

SECTION  IV. 

ASSURANCE. 

At  this  point,  then,  the  Apostle  concludes  that  great  main 
section  of  his  Epistle,  which  consisted  in  setting  forth  the 
Word  as  the  Word  of  Life,  in  order  that  we  may  have  fellow- 
ship with  one  another,  and  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and 
that  our  joy  may  be  full.  But  this  resulted  from  the  historic 
revelation  of  which  the  Apostles  were  appointed  witnesses. 
Life  springs  from  the  Word;  but  the  Church  could  only  be 
taught  respecting  that  Word — the  Logos  who  became  flesh — 
by  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles  to  His  life  on  earth.  Of  that 
testimony  in  general  his  readers  were  well  aware.     It  only  re- 


1  Because  by  faith  in  Christ  we  beconje  one  with  Him,  and  share  in  His  conquest  over  the 
world.     "  Be  of  good  cheer,  I  have  overcome  the  world  "  (John  xvi.  23). 

2  John  xiv.  15,  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  coinmandmcnts"  :  xiii.  34,  "A  new  command- 
ment I  give  you,  that  ye  love  one  another." 


644  TIIK   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

mained  to  say  something  as  to  its  cogenc}^  and  its  results. 
This  he  does  in  v.  6 — 9  and  10 — 12. 
The  witnesses  are  these: — 

"  This  is  He  who  came  by  means  of  water  and  blood,  Jesus  Christ ;  1  not  by 
the  water  only,  but  by  the  water  and  the  blood.  And  the  Spirit  is  that  which 
witnesscth  because  the  Spirit  is  the  truth.  Because  there  are  three  who  bear 
witness,  the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood,  and  the  three  tend  to  the  one 
thing  (viz.,  the  possession  of  Eternal  Life  in  Jesus  Christ)  "'  (v.  6 — 8). 

I  have,  of  course,  omitted  the  words  "on  earth"  and  the 
verse  about  the  three  heavenly  witnesses.^  The  spuriousness 
of  that  verse  is  as  absolutely  demonstrable  as  any  critical  con- 
clusion can  be.  It  is  omitted  in  all  Greek  manuscripts  before 
the  sixteenth  century;  it  was  unknown  to  any  one  of  the  Greek 
Fathers  before  the  thirteenth  century;  it  is  not  found  (except 
by  later  interpolation)  in  a  single  ancient  version;  it  does  not 
occur  in  any  one  of  some  fifty  lectionaries  which  contain  the 
rest  of  the  passage;  in  the  East  it  was  never  once  used  in  the 
Arian  controversy.  The  only  traces  of  it  are  in  some  of  the 
Latin  Fathers,  and  even  then  in  a  manner  which  seems  to 
show  that,  though  the  verse  may  have  been  a  marginal  anno- 
tation, it  did  not  occur  in  the  actual  text."  Had  it  ever  been 
in  the  original,  its  disappearance  is  simply  inconceivable,  for  it 
contains  a  clearer  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in 
Unity  than  any  other  in  the  whole  Bible.  This,  perhaps,  is 
the  reason  why  it  has  been  so  vigorously  defended.  But  not 
to  dwell  on  the  gross  immorality  of  defending  a  passage  mani- 
festly spurious  because  of  its  doctrinal  usefulness,  the  passage 
is  not  in  the  least  needed  as  a  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the 

'  This  (see  infra,  p.  647)  can  only  refer  primarily  to  historic  facts  in  the  Life  of  Christ. 
"  He  came  by  Water — w>iich  is  our  laver  [Kovrpov) — and  by  Blood — which  is  our  ransom 
(AwTpof)." 

^  Comp.  John  xvii.  23.  "I  in  them,  and  Thou  in  me,"  'iva  wcri  TereAeitojoiei'Oi  ei?  eV  (con- 
summated into  one);  "brought  to  a  final  unity,  in  which  they  attain  their  completeness" 
(Wcstcott)  ;  see  xi.  52.  But  the  meaning  here  is  not  so  certain.  I  have  supposed  the  words 
eialf  eis  ev  to  mean,  "are  for" — i.e.,  make  for  "  one  thing,"  viz..  the  truth  in  question,  "in 
unum  conseniiun/."  But  the  "one  thing "  may  be  "  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ."  Wordsworth 
renders  it,  "are  joined  into  one  substance,"  which  suits  John  xvii.  23,  but  hardly  this  passage. 
Rcuss's  "  Ces  trois  sotit  iVaccord,"  is  a  mere  untenable  paraphrase- 

*  They  were  first  translated  in  the  Zurich  I'.ible,  1529,  and  in  Luther's  edition  of  1534- 
First  they  were  printed  in  smaller  type,  or  in  brackets,  hut  after  1596  without  any  distinction. 
In  Greek  they  were  first  printed  in  the  Complutensian  eduion  of  1514,  and  the  3rd  edition  of 
Erasmus.  In  his  editions  of  1516  and  1518  he  omitted  them,  but  having  pledged  himself  to 
introduce  them  if  found  in  a  single  Greek  manuscript,  he  did  so,  though  believing  the  MS.  to 
be  corrupt—"  Ne  cui  sit  ansa  calumniandi."  On  their  appearance  in  a  lectionary  in  1549, 
Bc-rgenhagen  said,  "  Obsccru  chalcographos  et  eniditos  viros  ut  illam  additionem  omittant  et 
rcstituant  CJraeca  suae  priori  integritatict  puritati  propter  veritatem." 

••  The  first  distinct  quotation  of  the  words  is  by  Vigilius  Thapsensis,  at  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century.  "  If  the  fourth  century  knew  that  text,  let  it  come  in,  in  God's  name  ;  but  if  that 
age  did  not  know  it,  then  Arianism  in  its  height  was  teat  down  without  tlie  aid  of  that  verse  ; 
and  let  the  fact  prove  as  it  will,  the  doctrine  is  unshaken"  (Bentley).  It  is  not  impossible  that 
some  transcribers  may  have  taken  them  from  St.  Cyprian,  and  written  them  as  a  gloss  on  the 
niargm  of  liis  MS.     (VVordsworth  refers  to  Valcknaer,  de  Glossisin  N,  T.) 


THE   FIRST    EPISTLE   OF    ST.    JOHN.  645 

Trinity,  which,  even  without  it,  is  in  this  very  paragraph  dis- 
tinctly indicated  (vss.  6,  9).  The  demonstrable  spuriousness 
of  the  verse  renders  it,  then,  unnecessary  to  show  that  it 
breaks  and  disfigures  the  reasoning  of  the  passage,  because  it 
belongs  to  a  totally  different  order  of  ideas.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  it  will  disappear,  as  it  ought  to  disappear, 
from  the  text  of  any  revised  version  of  the  English  Bible.' 

But,  omitting  the  spurious  words,  what  does  the  passage 
mean?  It  has  a  very  deep  and  true  meaning,  for  which,  if 
Renan  had  sought  more  patiently  and  more  reverently,  he 
would  not  have  called  it  an  "Elchasaite  fantasticality."^ 

He  says  that  Jesus  Christ  came  by  means  of  water  and 
blood,  and  that  the  water  and  the  blood  are,  with  the  Spirit, 
three  witnesses,  which  give  one  converging  testimony.  As  to 
what  they  testify,  he  himself  tells  us — it  is,  that  God  gave  us 
Eternal  Life,  and  that  this  life  is  in  His  Son.  And  such  being 
the  high  truth  to  which  they  bear  witness,  it  is  most  important 
for  us  to  understand  in  what  way  their  testimony  is  valid — 
nay,  in  what  sense  it  can  be  called  a  testimony  at  all.  In  what 
sense,  then,  did  Jesus,  as  Christ — that  is,  Jesus  as  Son  of  God 
— come  by  water  and  blood.?  And  how  do  this  water  and 
blood  constitute  two  separate  witnesses? 

It  would  be  simply  impossible  for  any  one  to  answer  this 
question  who  had  not  the  Gospel  before  him.  The  notion  of 
''Witness"  is  one  that  plays  a  very  prominent  part  in  the  writ- 
ings of  St.  John.  To  him  Christianity  is  emphatically  "the 
Truth,"  i.e.  the  eternal,  all-comprehensive  Reality,  which 
must  pervade  alike  the  thoughts  and  the  actions  of  men.^  But 
the  Truth,  so  far  as  it  rests  on  outward  facts,  must  be  brought 
home  to  men's  hearts  by  "witness."  This,  of  course,  was 
necessary  from  the  first;  but  it  was  more  than  ever  necessary 
in  the  days  when  but  few  could  bear  the  testimony  first-hand, 
and  when  many  had  begun  to  cavil  and  to  doubt. 

Now,  in  the  Gospel,  St.  John  has  adduced  and  elaborated 
a  sevenfold  witness;*  i,  that  of  the  Father  (v.  31 — 37;  viii. 
18;;  2,  that  of  Christ  Himself  (viii.  14;  xviii.  37);  3,  that 
of  His  works  (v.  36;  x.  25);  4,  that  of  Scripture  (i.  45;  v.  39, 
4O)  45^;  5>  that  of  John  the  Baptist  (i.  7;  v.  -iyi)'^  65  ^^''^^  of  the 
Disciples  (xv.  27;  xix.  35;  xxi.  24);  and,  7,  that  of  the  Spirit 
(xv.  26;  xvi.  14).     These  seven  include  every  possible  form 


1  This  anticipation  was  written  before  the  Revised  Version  was  published  in  June,  i8Si. 

'^  In  Co)ite>nporary  Revieiu,  Sept.  1877. 

5  John  i.  14,  17  :  viii.  32,  40;  xiv.  17  ;   xv.  26;  xvi.  13;   xvii.  n,  17  ;   .xviii.  37. 

■*  See  Westcott's  .S7.  yohn,  pp.  xlv-xlvii. 


646  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  witness.  The  first  two  are  inward  and  Divine;  the  next 
two  are  outward  and  historical;  the  fifth  and  sixth  are  per- 
sonal and  experiential,  depending  on  the  capacity  and  truth- 
fulness of  righteous  men;  the  last  is  continuous  and  irrefrag- 
able. 

Again,  in  this  Epistle,  though  St.  John  alludes  to  the  wit- 
ness of  God  (v.  9),  and  of  Christ  (v.  6;,  and  to  the  witness  of 
the  Apostles  (i.  2;  iv.  14),  and  to  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  (v. 
6),  he  does  not  allude  to  the  four  other  forms  of  witness, 
though  he  adds  to  them  the  Avitness  of  absolute  inward  assur- 
ance (v.  10)  to  which  they  give  rise.  And  he  lays  special 
stress  on  the  water  and  the  blood  as  the  two  separate  and 
powerful  testimonies  of  the  Christ  to  His  own  Divinity.  Now, 
in  what  way  did  He  manifest  Himself  to  be  the  Divine  Saviour 
by  water  and  by  blood? 

Clearly  not  by  the  Baptism  of  John,  where  the  water  played 
a  most  subordinate  part,  seeing  that  it  was  not  by  the  water, 
but  by  the  Spirit  descending  as  a  dove,  that  He  was  conse- 
crated to  His  work. 

Nor,  again,  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  because  in  no 
conceivable  sense  of  the  words  could  it  be  said  that  "Christ 
came''  by  means  of  Christian  baptism:  nor  is  the  institution  of 
Baptism  mentioned,  though  the  symbolic  significance  of  water 
— which,  in  that  Sacrament,  reaches  its  highest  point — is  in- 
deed alluded  to.  Water,  in  the  Gospel,  is  the  symbol  of  new 
and  saving  life,'  as  it  also  is  in  Is.  xii.  3.  More  generally 
and  simply,  it  is  the  symbol  of  purification.  When  our  Lord 
speaks  of  "being  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,"  the  two 
things  symbolised  are  seen  in  their  unity — the  water  is  the 
sacramental  instrument  of  spiritual  regeneration  into  a  holy 
life. 

Yet,  since  even  thus  the  expression  that  Christ  came  "by 
the  medium  of  water"  would  be  strange,  and  by  no  means 
easy  of  interpretation,  we  must  wait  to  see  what  light  may  be 
thrown  upon  it  by  the  following  expression,  that  Christ  also 
came  "by  means  of  blood." 

Here,  again,  it  is  obvious  that  \.\\q  primary  allusion  cannot 
be  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  word  "came"  has,  in  St.  John, 
a  special  and  emphatic  meaning.  It  implies  the  manifestation 
of  Christ  as  the  Redeemer.  It  cannot,  then,  be  said,  on  any 
ordinary  principle  of  interpretation,  that  Christ  "came"  by 
instituting  the  Lord's  Supper.     And  that   St.   John,  at  least, 


John  ili.  5  :   iv.  lo  ;  vii.  38. 


THE    FIRST   KPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  647 

would  not  have  used  a  term  so  vague  is  clear,  because  there 
would  be  no  explanation  of  it  in  the  Gospel.  There  he  has 
not  so  much  as  mentioned  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, though — in  a  manner  which  we  have  already  seen  to  be 
characteristic  of  him — he  has  indicated  its  deepest  meaning. 
Further  than  this,  in  all  direct  allusions  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
the  wine  is  never  severed  from  the  bread,  the  blood  from  the 
flesh.  Indeed,  for  the  interpretation  of  what  St.  John  means 
by  "blood,"  we  need  go  no  further  than  this  Epistle,'  where 
he  mentions  the  blood  of  Christ  as  that  which  cleanses  us  from 
all  sin.'^ 

So  far,  then,  we  have  seen  that  by  "water"  and  "blood" 
St.  John  means  the  symbols  respectively  of  purification  and 
of  redemption — of  regeneration  and  of  atonement;^  and  so  far 
it  may  also  be  truly  said  that  there  may  be  an  indirect  and 
secondary  allusion  to  the  Sacraments,  just  as  there  is  in  the 
third  and  sixth  chapters  of  the  Gospel,  because  in  the  Sacra- 
ments the  symbolism  of  the  water  and  the  blood  finds  its  cul- 
minating application. 

But  even  yet  we  have  not  seen  how  it  can  be  said  that 
"Christ  ca)?ie  by  means  of  water  and  blood,"  as  the  means 
through  which,  and  "/>/  the  water  and  the  blood"  as  the  ele?nent 
in  which  He  came.  And  it  is  no  small  corroboration  of  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  Epistle  was  meant  to  accompany  the  Gospel 
as  a  kind  of  practical  commentary  upon  it,  that  it  would  be 
impossible  to  find  any  simple  or  adequate  explanation  unless 
we  had  the  Gospel  in  our  hands.  We  find  it  there  in  a  fact 
recorded  by  St.  John  alone,  but  placed  by  him  in  such  marked 
prominence,  and  corroborated  by  such  solemn  testimony,  that 
the  allusion  in  this  passage  to  the  fact  so  emphasized  cannot  be 
mistaken.  For  in  these  two  passages  alone,  of  ail  Sc7-ipture,  are 
blood  and  water  placed  together  ^  and,  as  if  to  show  yet  farther  the 
connexion  between  them,  they  are  in  both  places  prominently 
associated  with  the  notion  of  witness.  The  fact  is,  that  the 
soldier,  coming  to  break  the  legs  of  the  crucified,  in  order 
that  their  bodies  might  be  removed  before  the  sabbath,  find- 
ing that  Christ  was  dead,  did  not  break  His  legs,  "but  one  of 
the  soldiers,  with  a  lancehead,  gashed  His  side,  and  forth- 
with CAME    THEREOUT    BLOOD     AND    WATER.  "■*       NoW    if    this 


1  John  vi.  This  discourse,  interpreted  by  the  known  rules  of  Hebrew  symbolism,  is  a  most 
important  protection  against  tlie  superstitions  with  which  literalism,  and  materialism,  and  ec- 
desiasticism,  have  surrounded  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  shows,  as  plainly  as 
language  can  show,  that  by  "eating  His  flesh,  and  drinking  His  blood,"  our  Lord  meant  the 
Jiving  appropriation  of  Himself  by  Faith.  ^  »•  7»  ^  ''•  2  ;  iv.  10, 

■*  John  .\ix.  34. 


648  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

were  simply  a  physical  fact,  arising  from  the  death  of  Jesus 
by  rupture  of  the  heart,  and  the  natural  separation  of  the 
blood  into  placenta  and  serum^  both  of  which  flowed  forth 
when  the  pericardium  was  pierced,'  even  then  (though  in  this 
case  there  can  only  have  been,  at  most,  a  drop  or  two  of 
water,  visible,  perhaps,  to  St.  John"  only,  as  he  stood  close 
by  the  cross),  the  symbols  would  not  lose  their  divine  signifi- 
cance. This  circumstance  in  the  death  of  Christ — which,  if 
natural,  is  still  to  the  last  degree  abnormal  and  unusual — 
would,  even  in  that  case,  most  powerfully  suggest  the  symbol- 
ism which  St.  John  attaches  to  it.  It  would  have  suggested 
to  St.  John  the  thought  that  Christ  came — that  is,  manifested 
Himself  as  the  Divine  Redeemer — by  virtue  of  the  regener- 
ating and  atoning  power  of  which  the  water  and  the  blood  were 
symbolic.^  But  it  is  doubtful  w^hether  the  alleged  fact  ever 
naturally  occurs;  nor  is  it  probable  that  St.  John  had  enough 
scientific  knowledge  to  be  aware  that  if  it  occurs  it  must  be  a 
sign  of  death;  nor  is  it  his  object  to  show  that  the  death  v;as 
real,  since  at  that  early  period — and,  indeed,  till  long  after- 
wards— the  reality  of  the  death  was  never  for  a  moment  ques- 
tioned." In  the  Gospel,  as  here,  the  fact  is  appealed  to  "that 
we  may  believe;"  it  is  adduced  as  a  witness  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God.  Consequently,  there  as  well  as  here,  we  must 
suppose  that  in  St.  John's  view  there  was  something  super- 
natural in  the  circumstance;  and  that  there  was  an  obvious 
mystery — that  is,  the  obvious  revelation  of  a  truth  previously 
unknown — in  that  which  it  signified.  The  water  and  the  blood 
are  witnesses,  because,  in  the  culminating  incident  of  Christ's 
redemptive  work,  their  flowing  from  His  side  set  the  seal  to 
His  manifestation  as  a  Saviour,  and  because  they  are  the  sym- 
bols of  a  living  continuance  of  that  work  in  the  world.  The 
Spirit,  and  the  Water,  and  the  Blood  are  three  witnesses;  but 
it  is  more  especially  and  emphatically  the  Spirit  that  beareth 
witness,  because  it  is  through  the  Spirit  that  the  witness  of  the 
Water  and  the  Blood — that  is,  of  Christ's  regenerative  and 
atoning  power — is  brought  home  to  the  hum.an  heart.  Thus 
"the  trinity  of  witnesses  furnish  one  testimony."  Their  three- 
fold testimony  is,  as  he  proceeds  to  tell  us,  the  testimony  of 
God — 


_  »  See  Dr.  Stroud,  The  Physical  Cause  0/ the  Death  of  Christ,  and  my  Life  of  Crisih 
u.  424.     In  my  view  of  this  pass.ige  I  entirely  follow  Haupt. 

Mt  is  natural  to  suppose  tliat,  alter  conducting  the  Vire;in  to  his  home.  St.  John  returned. 

'  "  Whv  water?  why  blood  ?    Water  to  cleanse,  blood  to  redeem  "— Ambr.  {De  Sacr.  v.  i). 

<  It  wilf  be  seen  that  subsequent  stu,dy  has  a  little  modified  the  view  which  I  took  of  this 
cu-cumstancc  m  the  Life  of  Christ,  ii.  424. 


THE    FIRS'i'   EPISTLE   OF   SI'.    JOHN.  649 

"  If  we  accept  the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater  :  for  this  is 
the  witness  of  God,  because  '  He  hath  witnessed  concerning  His  Son.  He  who 
believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  Himself:  any  one  who  beheveth 
not  on  God  hath  made  Him  a  har,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  witness 
which  God  hath  witnessed  about  His  Son.  And  this  is  the  witness  that  God 
gave  to  us  Eternal  Life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son.  He  who  hath  the  Son  hath 
the  life  ;  any  one  who  hath  not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not  the  life  "  (vs.  9 — 12). 

In  these  verses  the  witness  is  further  analysed.  It  is  not 
mere  human  witness.  It  is  human  in  so  far  as  the  facts  alkided 
to  are  estabhshed  by  ApostoHc  testimony;  but  it  is  infinitely 
more.  It  is  divine  testimony,  and  it  is  divine  testimony 
echoed  and  confirmed  by  inward  witness.  If  it  be  objected 
that  the  Purification,  and  the  Redemption,  and  the  quicken- 
ing Spirit,  are  only  in  any  case  witnesses  to  the  believer — that 
they  are  subjective,  not  objective,  the  answer  is  twofold. 
First  that  St.  John  is  writing  to  believers,  and  thinking  of  be- 
lievers only;  and,  secondly,  that  both  the  perfected  witness  of 
God  (jUjxapTvprjKe) — perfected  in  the  death  of  Christ  and  the 
results  which  sprang  therefrom;  and  the  continuous  witness  of 
the  Spirit — continuous  in  every  conversion  and  every  sacrament 
— are  indeed  primarily  witnesses  to  believers,  but,  through  be- 
lievers, they  are  witnesses  to  all  the  world.  Believers  alone 
possessed  Eternal  Life,  and  it  was  their  unanimous  witness 
that  they  received  it  solely  through  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of 
God.  The  echo  of  the  divine  witnesses  in  the  lives  of  Chris- 
tians reverberated  the  divine  testimony  in  thousands  of  echoes 
through  all  the  world.  The  " N'os  soli  ituwcentes''  of  Tertul- 
lian,^ — 'We  alone,  amid  the  deep  and  gross  and  universal  cor- 
ruption of  a  Pagan  world,  live  innocent  and  holy  lives — was  the 
one  argument  which  the  heathen  found  it  most  impossible  to 
resist  or  overthrow.  It  was  the  threefold  witness  of  the 
Spirit,  the  Water,  and  the  Blood,  multiplied  in  the  life  of 
every  Christian,  and  it  became  ultimately  strong  enough  for 
the  regeneration  of  the  world.  Thus  was  it  that  the  Word 
manifested  Himself  to  be  that  which  St.  John  called  Him 
— "the  Word  of  Eternal  Life." 

SECTION  V. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  remaining  verses  of  the  Epistle  have  an  interest  more 
special.      St.    John  has  developed   his  main  thesis;    he  has 

J  oTt  (A,  B,  Vulg.,  Copt.,  Armenian,  etc.),  not  >j«',  is  the  true  reading.  The  rept-ated  on 
is  no  doubt  harsh  and  slightly  ambiguous,  for  the  second  oti  might  mean  "that."  For  these 
reasons,  or  perh.ips  by  a  mere  slip,  it  was  .iltered  into  the  easier  rjf.  Rut  the  meaning  is.  "we 
ought  to  believe  (i)  because  this  is  God's  witjiess  ;  and  (2)  because  He  A*?.?  borne  witness  con- 
cerning His  .Son."  2  Tert.  AJ>ol.  45. 


650  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

spoken  of  the  witness  by  which  the  truths  on  which  it  rested 
were  estabHshed.  The  rest  is  mainly  recapitulatory.  It 
touches  again  on  faith  in  Christ,  on  Eternal  Life,  and  on 
Confidence:  and  it  applies  that  confidence  to  the  special  topic 
of  trust  in  the  efiicacy  of  prayer  (vs.  13 — 17),  Then,  with  three 
repetitions  of  the  words  "we  know,"  he  once  more  alludes  to 
Sonship  and  Innocence,  and  severance  from  the  world,  and 
union  with  God  and  with  Christ,  and  Eternal  Life.  And  he 
concludes  with  a  most  weighty  and  pregnant  injunction.  But 
so  rich  was  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist  that,  as  we  shall  see, 
he  cannot  even  recapitulate  without  the  introduction  of  new 
and  most  important  thoughts. 

"  These  things  have  I  written  to  you  that  ye  may  know  that  ye  have  Eternal 
Life — to  you  who  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God. 

"And  this  is  the  confidence  which  we  have  towards  Him,  that,  if  we  ask  any- 
thing according  to  His  will.  He  heareth  us.  And  if  we  know  that  He  heareth 
us,  whatsoever  we  ask,  we  know  that  we  have  the  petitions  which  we  have  asked 
from  Him.  If  any  man  see  his  brother  sinning  a  sin  which  is  not  unto  death,  he 
shall  ask  and  shall  give  him  life  ' — to  those  who  are  sinning  a  sin  not  unto  death. 
There  is  a  sin  unto  death.  For  that  I  do  not  say  that  he  should  make  request. 
All  unrighteousness  is  sin,  and  there  is  a  sin  not  unto  death  "  (vs.  13 — 17). 

The  first  verse  of  this  passage  sums  up  once  more  the  aim 
of  the  Epistle — to  give  assurance  to  all  true  believers  that 
they  have  eternal  life.  Such  a  belief  makes  us  bold  towards 
God  in  filial  confidence,^  and  like  beloved  sons  we  can  ask  for 
what  we  need  from  our  Heavenly  Father.  But  if  our  minds 
are  filled,  if  our  lives  are  actuated  by  Brotherly  love, — if  our 
fellowship  with  God  be  of  necessity  fellowship  with  one 
another — our  prayers  will  constantly  be  occupied  with  our 
brethren;  they  will  to  a  large  extent  be  intercessory  prayers: — 

"  For  what  are  men  better  than  sheep  or  goat.s. 
That  nourj.sh  a  blind  life  within  the  brain. 
If,  knowing  (iod,  they  lift  not  hands  of  prayer 
Both  for  themselves  and  those  that  call  them  friend  ; 
For  so  the  whole  round  world  is  every  way 
Bound  by  gold  chains  about  the  feet  of  God." 

The  importance  attached  to  such  prayers  by  the  early  Chris- 
tians, who,  in  passages  like  these,  are  not  even  thinking  of 
])ersonal  prayers  for  any  earthly  blessing,  may  be  shown  by 
the  fact  that  there  is  an  allusion  to  exactly  the  same  kind  of 
intercessory  prayer  at  the  very  close  of  the   Epistle  of  St. 

•  He,  the  petitioner,  shall  give  life  to  his  brother.  St.  James  exactly  in  the  same  sense 
says  that  he  who  converts  a  brother,  '"  shall  save  a  .soul  from  death  "  (James  v.  20).  Nor  does 
this  in  the  least  contradict  the  truth  that  no  man  can  save  his  brother,  and  make  atonement 
unto  CJod  for  him.  Man  is  but  the  instrument  of  this  deliverance  ;  the  real  Deliverer  is  God. 
K'omp.  Judc  23,  "And  others  save,  pulling  them  out  of  the  fire.") 

■-•'rhc  itappTjvia  here  docs  not  refer  to  the  Day  of  Judgment,  as  in  iv.  17,  but  to  trustful 
I  r^ycr,  as  in  lii.  21,  aa  ;  and  a&  in  Fph.  lii.  12  ;   Hcb.  iv.  16. 


THE    FIRST   EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JOHN.  65 1 

James.  Many  a  prayer  for  earthly  blessings  may  be  by  no 
means  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God;  and  St.  John  finds 
it  here  necessary  to  touch  on  a  prayer  which  is  concerning 
spiritual  things,  and  which  yet  he  cannot  bid  a  Christian  offer. 
But  as  regards  prayer  in  general,  when  a  Christian  prays  he 
knows  that  God  listens/  and  he  therefore  has  what  he  asks 
for.  He  has  it  even  if  the  prayer  be  denied,  for  his  prayer  is 
not  absolutely  that  something  which  is  contingent  may  happen, 
but  that  Cod  will  give  him  the  true  and  the  best  answer  by 
making  the  will  of  the  petitioner  to«be  one  with  His.^  Now 
St.  John  assumes  that  the  Christian  will  pray  for  the  salvation 
of  his  brethren,  but  he  tells  us  that  there  is  one  instance  in 
which  such  a  prayer  will  be  unavailing.  It  is  when  we  see 
our  brethren  sinning  a  sin  which  is  unto  death.  In  other 
cases  the  Christian  by  prayer  shall  give  his  brother  life;  in  the 
case  of  a  sin  which  is  unto  death  St.  John  cannot  bid  any 
Christian  to  offer  up  his  filial,  his  familiar  prayer.^ 

What,  then,  is  this  sin  unto  death?  Is  it  a  single  act?  is 
it  a  settled  condition?  Does  it  give  any  countenance  to  the 
distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sins?  Is  it  the  same 
thing  as  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost?  To  enter 
fully  into  all  these  questions  here  would  be  to  break  the  con- 
tinuity of  our  endeavour  to  understand  the  general  scope  of 
the  Epistle.  I  will  therefore  treat  of  them  as  briefly  as  pos- 
sible. 

I.  St.  John  cannot  be  thinking  of  any  one  definite  act  of 
sin  (as  is  indeed  sufficiently  proved  by  his  use  of  the  present 
and  not  the  aorist  participle),  because  it  would  be  simply  im- 
possible for  any  man,  apart  from  inspired  supernatural  insight, 
to  declare  that  any  particular  sin  was  a  sin  unto  death.  Saul, 
under  strong  temptation,  broke  a  ceremonial  commandment 
of  the  Prophet  Samuel;  David  committed  adultery  and  mur- 
der under  conditions  which  made  those  crimes  peculiarly 
heinous.  Who  would  not  have  said  a p7'iori  that  the  sin  of 
David  was  infinitely  the  more  deadly  of  the  two?  Yet  "the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  departed  from  Saul,"  whereas  David  was 
still  able  to  pray  that  God  would  give  him  a  new  heart  and 
create  a  right  spirit  within  him — and  his  prayer  was  heard. 
Again,  the  Pharisees  attributed  Christ's  miracles  to   Beelze- 


dxovei  (John  ix.  31  ;  xi.  41,  42). 

2  "'We,  ignorant  of  ourselves, 
Beg  often  our  own  harms,  which  the  wise  Powers 
Deny  us  for  our  good.     So  gain  we  profit 
By  losing  of  our  prayers."— (.Shakspere.) 
'  epojT^CTT]      It  is  remarkable  that  this  word  should  be  used  (see  infra,  p.  653). 


652  THE   EARLY  DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

bub,  and  in  so  doing  we  are  told  that  they  came  perilously 
near,  if  they  did  not  actually  commit,  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  Sadducees  and  the  Romans,  on  the  other  hand, 
crucified  Him.  Who  would  not  have  said  that  the  Sadducees 
were  the  worse  offenders?  Yet  Christ  prayed  unconditionally 
for  His  murderers,  "Father,  forgive  them;"  and  if  He  gave 
the  unconditional  promise  to  His  disciples  that  "whatsoever 
they  asked  in  His  name,  believing,  they  should  receive," 
must  we  not  regard  it  as  certain  that  His  own  prayer  was  heard? 
Clearly,  then,  a  sin  becomes  a  sin  unto  death  not  by  its  ex- 
ternal characteristics,  but  by  its  interior  quality,  and  that  in- 
terior quality  is  for  the  most  part  undiscernible  by  the  eye  of 
man.  The  nature  of  the  'consummating  act,  the  nature  of 
the  continuous  state  which  constitutes  the  sin  unto  death,  may 
be  completely  disguised,  while  the  offender  still  walks  among 
men  in  the  odour  of  sanctity. 

"  So  spake  the  false  dissembler  unperceived  ; 
For  neither  man  nor  angel  can  discern 
Hypocrisy,  the  only  evil  that  walks 
Invisible,  except  to  God  alone. 

By  His  permissive  will,  through  Heaven  and  earth  ; 
And  oft,  though  wisdom  wake,  suspicion  sleeps 
At  wisdom's  gate,  and  to  simplicity 
Resigns  her  charge,  while  goodness  thinks  no  ill 
Where  no  ill  seems  :  which  now  for  once  beguiled 
Uriel,  though  regent  of  the  sun,  and  held 
The  sharpest  sighted  spirit  of  all  in  Heaven  ; 
Who,  to  the  fraudulent  impostor  foul. 
In  his  uprightness,  answer  thus  returned." 

^Paradise  Lost,  iii.  681-694.) 

2.  There  is  such  a  thing — as  we  have  already  seen  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — as  absolute  and  desperate  apostasy, 
wherein  a  man  cuts  himself  utterly  loose  from  all  the  means 
of  grace,  and  effectually  closes  their  influence  upon  him. 
There  is  such  a  thing  not  only  as  wilful,  but  even  as  willing 
sin.  There  can  be  such  a  thing  as  a  deliberate  putting  of  evil 
for  good  and  good  for  evil,  of  bitter  for  sweet  and  sweet  for 
bitter;  such  a  thing  as  a  man  selling  himself  to  do  evil,  and 
trampling  under  foot  the  Spirit  of  God.  This,  in  the  view  of 
the  Apostles,  is  connected  with  Antichrist;  the  man  who  does 
it  is  a  "man  of  sin";  it  is  a  deliberate  abandonment  of  Christ 
for  Satan,  of  light  for  darkness,  of  life  for  death.  When  such 
a  blaspheming  apostasy  occurred  in  the  very  bosom  of  the 
Church,  he  who  was  aware  that  it  had  occurred,  could  only 
feel  that,  so  far  as  mere  human  foresight,  or  human  prayers 
on  his  behalf  could  go,  such  a  man  would  die  in  his  sin.' 


John  viii.  21-24. 


THE    FIRST    EPISTLE   OE    ST.    JOHN.  653 

3.  For  such  a  man  a  Christian  could  hardly  offer  the  prayer 
which  is  inspired  with  the  divine  conviction  that  it  is  heard; 
for  it  is  impossible,  humanly  speaking,  to  renew  such  a  man 
unto  repentance.'  St.  John  feels  that  he  must  refrain  from  ex- 
horting Christians  to  offer  the  highest  kind  of  prayer* — such 
prayers  as  Christ  offered,  and  which  are  scarcely  ever  predi- 
cated of  any  other — for  the  most  consummate  form  of  sin.^ 

4.  Yet  it  does  not  seem  that  ht  forbids  even  such  prayers." 
He  could  WQ\.  do  so,  for  he  gives  no  criterion  by  which  his 
readers  could  discern  what  was,  and  what  was  not,  a  sin 
unto  death.  He  only  says,  "when  you  see  your  brother 
sinning  a  sin  which  you  know  may  be  forgiven" — and  they 
would  learn  from  the  entire  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
well  as  from  the  Gospels,  that  this  might  be  any  sin  however 
apparently  heinous,  were  it  even  such  a  sin  as  that  which  had 
stained  the  Church  of  Corinth,  and  against  which  the  very 
heathen  had  exclaimed — "you  may  pray  for  it  with  the  con- 
viction that  God  will  hear  your  prayer.  But,"  he  adds,  "you 
must  not  expect  that,  in  every  possible  case,  every  prayer  you 
offer  for  the  sin  of  a  brother  will  be  heard.  For  there  is  a  sin 
unto  death.  Not  respecting  that  sin  am  I  saying  that  a  Chris- 
tian should  make  filial  request."  His  prayers  must  in  such 
cases  take  a  humbler  form  (aiTeti/j;  they  must  inevitably  be 
offered  up  with  a  less  implicit  confidence  that  they  will  be 
heard;  they  must  rather  consist  of  a  committal  of  the  sinner 
to  God's  mercy  than  an  assured  petition  that  that  mercy  \\\\\ 
be  extended  in  the  form  which  we  desire. 

5.  We  may  perhaps  derive  some  insight  into  the  meaning 
of  the  sin  unto  death  from  the  language  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, with  the  meanings  which  the  Jews  inferred  from  it,  and 
from  those  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  seem  to 
offer  the  nearest  parallel. 

a.  As  regards  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  the  phrase  "a 
sin  unto  death"  (LXX.  hamartia  thanathephoros)  in  Num.  xviii. 
22,"^  Lev.  xxii.  9,°  but  this  does  not  greatly  help  us,  because 

1  Heb.  vi.  4-6,  and  on  that  passage  see  Riehm,  Lehrbegr.  d.  Hcl'riierbrif/s^  ii.  763,  /g. 

2  epui-n^oYf.  The  word  atTto  [peto)  is  used  of  the  petition  of  an  inferior;  epujTw  [ro^o).  of 
the  more  fann'liar  entreaties  of  a  friend.  Hence  our  Lord  never  uses  aniii  of  His  own  prayers  ; 
and  never  uses  ipuiTOi  of  the  prayers  of  the  Disciples  (John  xiv.  16  ;  xvi.  26  ;  xvii.  ^,  15,  20  ; 
which  show  that  St.  John  felt  and  observed  the  distinction).  We  may  humbly  aiTeiv  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  not  unto  death  :   we  may  not  even  eptordv  those  of  sins  unto  death. 

3  j^y  a  "sin  unto  death,"  St.  John  meant  absolute  and  wilful  apostacy  from,  and  abnega- 
tion of,  Christ,  both  theoretically  and  practically. 

■•  "Ora,  .si  velis,  sed  sub  dubio  impetrandi"  (Calvin). 

^  "Sin  with  high  hand,"  Numb.  xv.  30;  Matt.  xii.  31  (Schottgen,  ad  loc). 
ri%V   Nl;)!.      The  references  are  to  the  approach  of  non-Levitical  per.sons  to  the  sanc- 
tuary, and  iicgici-tof  i.evitical  purifications.     The  Rabbis  divided  sins  into  NrT'C?  HKUri 


654  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

there  the  reference  merely  is  to  sins  which  were  punished  with 
death,  whereas  St.  John  is,  of  course,  referring  to  spiritual 
deatli,  as  in  iii.  14. 

(i.  Nor,  again,  is  much  light  thrown  on  the  passage  b}^  the 
crimes  to  which  excision — "cutting  off  from  the  people" — is 
assigned  as  a  penalty  under  the  Mosaic  law.  Whatever  inter- 
pretation be  attached  to  those  words — whether  death  by  divine 
interposition,  as  the  Rabbis  thought,  or  by  the  hand  of  the 
civil  power,  as  others  think,  or  exile,  or  excommunication^ — 
it  is  quite  clear  that  the  sins  upon  which  this  excision  {careth) 
is  denounced  are  not  unpardonable,  not  beyond  the  reach  of 
repentance  and  forgiveness. 

7.  Again,  in  no  less  than  three  places,  Jeremiah  is  forbid- 
den to  pray  for  the  Jews  (Jer.  vii.  16;  xi.  14;  xiv.  11);  yet  we 
certainly  may  not  infer  that  the  case  of  all  these  Jews  was 
eternally  hopeless,  or  that  though  they  were  put  beyond  the 
range  of  the  prayers  of  men,  they  were  therefore  for  ever  ex- 
cluded from  the  tender  mercies  of  God. 

8.  In  the  New  Testament  we  find  St.  Paul  twice  using  the 
expression  "delivering  to  Satan."  The  offenders  to  whom 
he  applies  it  are  the  Corinthian  sensualist  (i  Cor.  v.  5),  and 
Hymena^us,  and  Alexander  (i  Tim.  i.  20).  Again,  for  Alex- 
ander the  Coppersmith,  in  2  Tim.  iv.  14,  St.  Paul  offers  no 
prayer  but  this,  "May  the  Lord  reward  him  according  to  his 
works."  Now  it  is  a  reasonable  inference  that  while  a  man 
was  under  the  sentence  of  the  Church's  excommunication — 
while  he  was  thus  deliberately  cut  off  by  their  act  from  the 
means  of  grace — he  would  not  have  been  included  in  their 
prayers;  not,  at  any  rate,  in  such  prayers  as  they  were  wont 
to  offer  up  for  one  another.  We  see  the  character  of  the  sins 
of  these  men.  The  sins  of  Hymenseus  and  Alexander  con- 
sisted in  deliberately  rejecting  (d7rojo-a/>t«vot  "pushing  away  from 
themselves")  faith  and  a  good  conscience,  and,  in  conse- 
quence, making  shipwreck  of  their  faith.  St.  Paul  delivered 
them  to  Satan.  Why?  In  order  that  they  might  perish  ever- 
lastingly? Far  from  it;  but  for  a  merciful  and  hopeful  pur- 
pose— "that  they  may  be  trained  not  to  blaspheme."  A 
worse  case  cannot  be  imagined  than  that  of  the  Corinthian 
offender.    He  was  a  Church-member,  admitted  into  full  fellow- 


and  MrT'tt'5  N^  nNlsM,  "  .n  sin  unto  death,"  and  "not  unto  death."  In  the  Talmud  we 
find  "/'V7'<:  liavc  no  forgiveness  of  sins— (i)  He  who  keeps  on  sinning  and  repenting  alter- 
nately ;  (2)  he  who  sins  in  a  sinless  age:  (3)  he  who  sins  on  purpose  to  repent  ;  (4)  he  who 
causcth  the  name  of  (Jod  to  be  blasphemed."  The  fifth  is  left  unexpressed  (Avoth  d'  Rab* 
Nathan,  39).  1  See  Gesen.  Thes.  s.  v.   mS,   p.  719. 


THE    FIRST   EriSTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN,  655 

ship,  even  supported  by  public  sanction,  and  yet  he  was  living 
in  the  open  practice  of  a  sin  so  shameful  that,  as  St.  Paul 
says,  "it  is  not  so  much  as  named  among  the  heathen."  No 
conduct  could  be  more  infamous,  not  only  in  itself,  but  also 
because  it  caused  the  name  of  Christ  to  be  blasphemed  in  that 
vile  heathen  world.  With  intense  and  burning  indignation, 
St.  Paul  imagines  himself  present  in  spirit  in  the  assembly  of 
the  Christian  Church,  and  there  solemnly,  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  he  "hands  over  the  offender  to  Satan."  If  any  sin 
could  be  regarded  as  a  sin  unto  death,  must  not  this  have  been 
such  a  sin,  seeing  that  it  was  shameless,  continuous,  against 
light. and  knowledge,  the  sin  of  a  Christian  which  was  not 
even  tolerated  by  heathens?  It  was  natural  that  the  victorious 
prayer  of  triumphant  confidence  should  be  suspended  in  the 
case  of  such  a  man.  Yet  what  is  St.  Paul's  object  in  hand- 
ing him  to  Satan?  Not  by  any  means  his  everlasting  damna- 
tion, but  "the  destruction  of  his  carnal  impulses,  in  order  that 
his  spirit  maybe  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.^'^  The 
man  ivas  handed  to  Satan  by  the  now-aroused  conscience  of 
the  startled  community.  And  what  was  the  result?  In  his 
next  letter,  a  few  months  afterwards,  St.  Paul  is  once  more 
urging  them  to  show  mercy  towards  this  very  offender.  The 
"handing  to  Satan"  has  done  its  work.  The  fleshly  tempta- 
tion has  been  annihilated.  The  man  has  repented.  St.  Paul 
is  now  afraid  lest  he  should  be  injured  by  over  severity.  He 
bids  them  restore  and  ratify  their  love  towards  the  now  peni- 
tent transgressor,  "lest  by  any  means  he  should  be  swallowed 
up  by  his  superabundant  sorrow.""^  Similarly,  in  the  case  of 
Alexander,  St.  Paul's  avoidance  of  a  prayer  for  him  is  practi- 
cally a  prayer  for  him.  It  is  not  equivalent — as  is  sometimes 
supposed — to  a  sort  of  curse,  "May  God  do  him  evil  as  he 
has  done  to  me;"  for  such  a  prayer — though  a  David  or  a 
Hebrew  exile  may  have  offered  it  in  ignorance,  in  days  be- 
fore the  new  commandment  had  been  uttered — in  days  when 
it  had  been  said  to  them  of  old  time,  "Thou  shalt  hate  thine 
enemy" — could  not  have  been  offered  without  sin  by  a  Chris- 
tian Apostle.  St.  Paul's  ejaculation  is  only  another  way  of 
saying  "It  is  not  for  me  to  judge  him;  I  leave  him  in  the 
hands  of  God." 

From  this  examination  then  we  may  infer  that  St.  John's 
limitation  belongs,  like  so  many  of  his  thoughts,  to  the  region 
of  the  ideal,  the  theoretical,  the  absolute;  that  it  is  only  in- 

J  I  Cor.  V.  5.  82  Cor.  ii.  6-8. 


656  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

troduced  as  a  passing,  but  very  solemn,  reminder  of  the  truth 
that  there  is  a  sin  which  is  past  the  possibiHty  of  being  bene- 
fited by  the  Christian's  prayer;  a  sin  which  can  be  only  left 
to  God,  because  it  is  discernible  by  Him  alone.  Practically 
it  is  most  unlikely  that  we  shall  ever  become  cognisant  of  any 
sin  in  a  brother  so  heinous,  so  desperate,  so  darkly  deliberate 
ill  the  apostate  condition  of  heart  which  it  implies,  so  obvi- 
ously beyond  the  possibility  of  repentance,  that  we  dare  not 
pray  for  it.  On  the  analogy  of  the  language  used,  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  we  must  infer  that  even  though 
there  be  a  sin  unto  death,  it  is  not  beyond  the  mercy  of  Him 
who  died  "that  He  might  destroy  him  who  hath  the  power  of 
death,  that  is  the  devil."  To  God  we  may  leave  it,  if  we  find 
that  we  are  unable  to  offer  up  on  its  behalf  the  prayer  of  faith. 
How  little  we  are  ever  likely  to  realise  the  existence  of  such  a 
sin  we  may  infer  from  this — that  there  are  only  two  or  three 
in  all  the  long  generations  of  Christian  history  about  whose 
salvation  the  Church  has  ever  ventured  to  express  an  open 
doubt. 

We  are  told  in  the  Talmud  that  Beruriah,  the  wife  of  the 
great  Rabbi  Meier,  once  heard  him  ardently  praying  to  God 
against  some  ignorant  people — am  haratsim — who  annoyed 
him.  She  came  to  him  and  said,  "Do  you  do  this  because  it 
is  written  (in  Ps,  civ.  35)  'Let  the  sinners  be  consumed'.'*  But 
there  it  is  not  written  chotaiin^  'sinners,'  hvX  chittaim^  'sins.' 
Besides,  the  Psalm  adds,  'And  let  the  wicked  be  no  more,' 
that  is  to  say,  'Let  sins  cease,  and  the  wicked  will  cease  too.' 
Pray,  therefore,  on  their  behalf,  that  they  may  be  led  to  re- 
pentance, and  these  wicked  will  be  no  more."  This  he  there- 
fore did,  and  they  repented,  and  ceased  to  vex  him.' 

The  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  shows  that,  as  a  rule,  we 
must  herein  follow  the  example  of  the  brilliant  Rabb\  But 
the  New  Testament  teaches  the  lesson  far  more  fully  than 
the  Old.     The  Church  herself  teaches  us  to  pray — 

"That  it  may  please  Thee  to  have  mercy  upon  all  men, 

We  beseech  Thee  to  hear  us,  Good  Lord." 

And  accordingly  St.  John  instantly  leaves  the  subject  of  the 
sin  unto  death  to  which  he  has  made  this  unique  and  passing 
allusion,  and  adds  "All  unrighteousness  is  sin,  and  there  is  a 
sin  unto  death."  Therefore  you  will  ever  have  the  amplest 
scope  for  your  intercessory  supplications.  Practically,  that 
scope  is  the  whole  range  of  unrighteousness,  the  whole  range 

1  Avodah  Zarah,  f.  i8,  b. 


THE    FIRST   EPIS'ILE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  657 

of  human  sin.  If  the  sin  for  which  we  are  interceding  is  a 
sin  which  God  knows,  and  which  we  may  fear  to  be  unto 
death,  St.  John  does  not /<5'r/^/V/ such  prayers;  for  he  says,  "I 
do  not  say  that  you  should"  (ouAcyo)  tm),  not  "I  say  that  you 
should  not"  (Xeyw  Iva  /xt/).  Clearly  it  can  never  be  in  our 
power  to  decide  what  sins  are  unto  death.  If  we  unwittingly 
pray  for  such  a  sin,  the  Apostle  can  give  us  no  promise  that 
the  intercession  is  of  any  avail.  But  if  there  be  any  sin  for 
which  we  feel  the  genuine  impulse  to  pray,  we  may  rest  as- 
sured that  that  impulse  is  an  inspiration,  and  therefore  that 
the  prayer  may  be  offered,  and  will  be  heard. 

Then  the  Epistle  concludes  with  these  words: — 

"We  know  that  every  one  who  has  been  born  of  God  sinneth  not ;  but  he 
who  is  born  of  God  keepeth  himself,'  and  the  wicked  one  graspeth  him  not.^ 

"  Wk  know  that  we  are  of  God,  and  the  whole  world  lieth  in  the  wicked 
one. 

"  But  WE  KNOW  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  under- 
standing, that  we  recognise  Him  who  is  true,  and  we  are  in  Him  who  is  true, 
in  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ.     This=^  is  the  true  God,  and  Life  Eternal. * 

"  Little  children,  keep  yourselves  from  idols  "  (ver.  18 — 21). 

Here,  as  before,  St.  John  is  beholding  all  things  in  their 
idea.  Here,  and  now,  neither  are  we  absolutely  sinless,  nor 
is  the  whole  world  absolutely  absorbed  in  sin.  But  in  idea, 
in  the  ultimate  truth  of  things,  it  is  so,  and,  in  the  final  sever- 
ance of  things,  it  will  be  so.  Our  knowledge  that  it  is  and 
will  be  so  rests  deep  among  the  bases  of  all  Christian  faith. 
We  know  it  because  Christ  has  come,  and  has  given  us  dis- 
cernment to  recognise  Him  who  is  the  only  Reality.  We  are 
in  Him,  and  in  His  Son;  He,  God  the  Father,  is  the  Very 
God,  and  Eternal  Life.^  For  St.  John  has  already  said  in  his 
Gospel  (xvii.  3),  "This  is  the  Life  Eternal,  that  they  should 
learn  to  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ, 
whom  Thou  didst  send." 

The  last  verse  is  a  most  pregnant  warning,  introduced  by 


1  It  is  astonishing  that  Alford,  following  the  Vulgate,  should  render  this  "but  he  that  hath 
been  born  of  (k)d,  it  {i.e.  his  divine  birtli)  keepeth  him  "  ("  sed  gencratio  Dei  conservat  eiim  "). 
There  is  not  the  smallest  theological  difliculty  involved  \\\  saying  that  "he  keepeth  himself" 
(see  on  iii.  3).  It  means  that  effort  is  always  necessary  even  for  the  saint — oir  ^v<m.  eis  o-va.- 
(lapTrfcriav  itpofiaLveL  (<T,cunien). 

2  '•  The  Evil  one  approaches  him,  as  a  fly  approaches  a  lamp,  but  does  not  injure,  does 
not  even  touch  him  "  (I3engel).  But  awTOjutat  with  a  genitive  properly  means  "  to  lay  hold  of." 
Thus  jixj)  fjLOv  ixTTTov  is  not  N'oli  me  taugeye,  but  "  Cling  not  to  nie  "  (see  my  Life  of  Christ, 
ii.  434).  ^  N.-imcly,  the  Father,  as  seen  in  His  Son  (Jer.  xl.). 

4'Tlius  the  Epistle  ends  as  it  began,  with  JCter'nal  Life  (Hengel).  Comp.  John  xvii.  3. 

•^  That  the  Father  is  referred  to  seems  to  be  decided  by  John  xvii.  3.  There  is  nothing  ab- 
normal in  the  change  of  subject.  'J'he  Father  is  the  principal  subject  of  the  whole  clause, 
though  the  Son  is  last  named.  For  a  similar  change  of  subject  sec  verse  16,  and  ii.  22,  and  2 
John  7. 

42 


658  T?IE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  Apostle's  most  affectionate  title  of  address — Little  chil- 
<jren! — "keep  yourselves  from  idols."  He  is  not,  of  course, 
thinking  of  the  gods  of  the  heathen.  He  is  writing  to  Chris- 
tians who  had  long  abandoned  these,  who  had  not  the  smallest 
temptation  to  apostatise  to  their  worship.  He  is  speaking  of 
"subjective  idolism."  He  is  putting  them  on  their  guard 
against  seductive  notions  of  false  prophets;  subtle  suggestions 
of  Antichrists.  He  is  warning  them  not  against  gross  idols 
of  gold  and  jewels,  representing  deities  of  lust  and  blood,  but 
against  false,  fleeting,  dangerous  images — idols  of  the  forum, 
of  the  theatre,  of  the  cave;  systematising  inferences  of  scho- 
lastic theology;  theories  of  self-vaunting  orthodoxy;  sem- 
blances under  which  we  represent  God  which  in  no  wise  re- 
semble Him;  ever-widening  deductions  from  Scripture  grossly 
misinterpreted;  earthly  passions  and  earthly  desires  which  we 
put  in  the  place  of  Him;  ideas  of  Him  which  loom,  upon  us 
through  the  lurid  mists  of  earthly  fear  and  earthly  hatred; 
notions  of  Him  which  we  make  for  ourselves,  which  are  not 
He;  conceptions  of  Him  which  we  have  derived  only  from 
our  party-organ,  or  our  personal  conceit.  It  is  the  most  preg- 
nant of  all  warnings  against  every  form  of  unfaithfulness  to 
God;  against  violations  whether  of  the  First  or  of  the  Second 
Commandment;  against  devotion  to  anything  which  is  not 
eternally  and  absolutely  true;  against  perversions  due  to  re- 
ligionism quite  as  much  as  against  open  rejection  of  God; 
against  the  tyrannous  shibboleths  of  aggressive  systems  no 
less  than  against  the  worship  of  Belial  and  of  Mammon. 
These  are  the  idols  which  in  these  days  also  are  more  perilous 
to  faith  and  holiness  than  any  w^iich  the  heathen  worshipped. 
They  are  dominant  in  sects  and  Churches  and  schools  of 
thought.  They  are  the  work,  not  of  men's  hands,  but  of  their 
imaginations.  They  have  mouths,  but  do  not  utter  words  of 
truth;  they  have  eyes,  but  not  such  as  can  gaze  on  the  true 
light;  they  have  hands,  but  they  do  not  the  deeds  of  right- 
eousness; feet  have  they,  but  only  such  as  hurry  them  into 
error.  "They  that  make  them  are  like  unto  them;  and  so 
are  all  such  as  put  their  trust  in  them."  Little  children — all 
who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity  and  truth — all  who 
know  that  hatred  is  of  the  devil — all  who  have  recognised 
that  "Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law" — little  children,  keep 
yourselves  from  idols! 


THE   SECOND    EPISTLE   OF    ST.    JOHN.  659 


CHAPTER   XXXVI. 

THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JOHN. 
"  Amor  non  modo  verus  amor  est,  scd  veritate  e\angelica  nititur."  —  Hengel. 

Apart  from  the  truths  inculcated  in  such  private  Epistles  as 
the  Second  and  Third  of  St.  John  and  that  of  St.  Paul  to 
Philemon,  it  is  a  happy  Providence  which,  in  spite  of  their 
brevity,  has  preserved  them  for  us  during  so  many  hundred 
years.  They  show  us  what  grace  and  geniality  reigned  in 
Christian  intercourse,  and  how  much  there  was  in  this  sweet 
communion  of  saints  which  compensated,  even  on  earthly 
grounds,  for  the  loss  of  the  world's  selfish  friendships  and 
seductive  approbation.  The  love  of  the  brethren  more  than 
counter-balanced  the  hatred  of  the  enemies  of  Christ. 

That  these  little  letters  are  genuine  there  is  good  reason 
to  believe.  They  may  be  treated  together,  because  there  can 
be  no  question  that  if  either  of  them  is  genuine  both  of  them 
are,  since  they  may  well  be  described  as  "twin-sisters."* 
Their  close  resemblance  in  style,  phraseology,  and  tone  of 
thought,  shows  that  they  were  written  about  the  same  time, 
and  by  the  same  person.  Further  than  this,  they  agree  so 
closely  with  the  First  Epistle  that  if  they  were  written  by 
another  the  resemblance  could  only  be  accounted  for  by  de- 
liberate imitation.  But  what  possible  ground  could  there  be 
for  "forging"  letters  so  slight  as  these, — letters  which,  though 
full  of  value,  do  not  add  a  single  essential  thought  to  those 
which  are  already  fully  expressed  and  elaborated  in  the  other 
writings  of  St.  John?  Their  very  unimportance  for  any  doc- 
trinal purpose,  apart  from  the  Gospel,  the  Apocalypse,  and 
the  First  Epistle,  is  one  of  the  proofs  that  no  falsarius  would 
have  thought  it  worth  his  while  to  palm  them  off  upon  the 
Church.  Containing  no  conception  which  is  not  found  else- 
where, they  have  little  independent  dogmatic  value;  their 
chief  interest  lies  in  the  glimpse  which  they  give  us  of  Chris- 
tian epistolary  intercourse  in  the  earliest  days. 

The  external  evidence  in  their  favour  is  even  stronger  than 
we  could  have  expected  in  the  case  of  compositions  so  short, 
so  casual,  and  so  unmarked  by  special  features.  There  is  but 
one  passage  (vss.  10,  11)  in  the  Second  Epistle  which  can  be 
quoted  as  distinctive,  and  for  that  very  reason  it  is  the  one  to 
which  most  frequent  reference  is  made;  nor  is  there  anything 


Jer.  EJ>.  85. 


660  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

which  specifically  characterises  the  Third  except  the  allusions 
to  Diotrephes  and  Demetrius.  There  is  scarcely  a  single  expres- 
sion in  either  of  these  letters  with  which  previous  writings  have 
not  already  made  us  familiar.  Indeed,  no  less  than  eight  out 
of  thirteen  verses  in  the  Second  Epistle  are  also  to  be  found 
in  the  First.  It  is  not,  therefore,  surprising  that  they  only 
became  known  gradually  to  the  Church,  and  that  they  v/ere 
regarded  as  comparatively  unimportant,  being  written  "out 
of  feelings  of  private  affection,  though  to  the  honour  of  the 
Catholic  Church.'"  Yet  the  first  of  them  is  twice  quoted  by 
Irenceus,'  and  twice  referred  to  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria.^ 
Cyprian  mentions  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Elect  Lady  (of  course 
the  passage  about  "heretics"),  was  quoted  by  one  of  the 
bishops  at  the  Council  of  Carthage.  The  testimony  of  the 
jNIuratorian  Canon  is  ambiguous,  owing  to  the  corruption  of 
the  text,  but  it  seems  to  tell  in  favour  of  the  Epistles.*  The 
Sylvian  Church,  according  to  Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  did  not 
acknowledge  these  Epistles;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Sec- 
ond Epistle  is  quoted  by  Ephraem  the  Syrian.  Eusebius  and 
Origen  seem  to  have  regarded  the  Epistles  as  genuine,  though 
they  rank  them  among  the  disputed  books  of  the  canon — the 
anti-kgomena;  as  also  does  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  the  pseudo- 
Chrysostom,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.^  St.  Jerome  says 
that  there  were  many  who  assigned  them  to  the  authorship  of 
"John  the  Presbyter;"  but  he  seems  himself  to  have  accepted 
them."  The  notion  that  they  were  written  by  '  ']o\m  the  Pres- 
byter" was  revived  by  Erasmus  and  Grotius,  and  has  since 
been  maintained  by  some  modern  scholars.'     But,  as  I  have 

1  The  Muratorian  Canon  says  of  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  and  the  two  to  Timothy,  that  they 
were  written  ''J>ro  affect ti  et  dilectione  in  honorem  tamen  ecclesiae  catholicae." 

2  Iren.  Haer.  iii.  i6,  8  ;  i,  i6,  3. 

*  Sirom.  ii.  15,  and  Fragm.  p.  101 1,  ed.  Potter  (but  comp.  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  14);  Tert. 
De  Praescr.  Haer.  33. 

<  See  Wicscler,  Studien  und  Kritiketi,  1847,  P-  846.  The  true  reading  and  punctuation 
of  the  passage  seems  to  be  "  Epistolae  sane  Judae  et  superscripli  Johannes  diiae  [or  duas  = 
hva.%,  "a  pair")  in  Caiholica  habentur."  The  words  which  follow,  "  ut  Sapientia  ab  amicis 
Saiomonis  in  honf)rcni  ipsius  scripta,"  must  then  be  referred  to  tiie  Apocalypse,  as  though  it 
was  written  by  friends  uf  John,  as  Wisdom  by  friends  of  Solomon. 

*  oh  jTtti'T*?  <^aal  yvr\(jia.<i  elrai  Tavras  (Orig.  ap.  Euseb.  //.  K.  vi.  25  ;  Devi.  Evang.  iii. 
5)  ;  elre  toD  Eiia-yyeAto-ToG  Tvy;(ai'ouo'ac,  eiVe  »cal  erepov  ofMUii'VfJLOV  e<cet»'<p  (Euseb.  iii.  25)  ; 
^epo/uicVa«  'Iwai-yov  (l)yonis.  Alex.  up.  Euseb.  vii.  25)  ;  d^TtAe'-yofrat  6e  at  koiwaX  Svo  (Euseb. 
iii.  24).  'I'he  pseudo-Chrysostom  exagt;erates  when  he  snys  [Uoin.  in  Matt.  xxi.  23),  '"the 
Fathers  reject  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  from  the  Canon." 

*  •*  Opmiu  quam  a  f>leris<]ue  retulimus  traditam  "  (Jer.  De  Virr.  Illustr.  g  ;  but  see  E/i. 
85).  Cosmas  Indicopleu.'^tes  rejects  re//  the  Catholic  Epistles,  but  his  remarks  about  them  (De 
A/undo,  vii.  p.  292)  arc  so  full  of  errors  as  to  deserve  no  notice.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  in  his 
Iambics,  says — "  Of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  some  say  that  we  ought  to  receive  sero/,  and  some 
only  three — one  of  James,  one  of  Peter,  and  one  of  John — but  some  say  the  three  (of  John)." 

'  Dodwell,  Hccic,  Fritzsche,  Ebrard,  etc.  'Jhe  latter  says  (1)  that  all  resemblances  to  the 
First  Epistle  vanisii  if  2  John  5-0,  7,  and  3  John  n  are  rcg.irdcd  as  quotations  :  and  (2)  that 
it  is  inconceivable  that  \\\ti  authority  of  an  Apostle  should  have  been  disputed  in  such  a  way 
as  is  described  in  3  John  9. 


THE   SECOND    EPISTLE   OF.  ST.  JOHN.  66l 

shown  in  the  Excursus,  there  never  was  such  a  person  as  John 
the  Presbyter  in  contradistinction  from  John  the  Apostle. 
The  two  were  one.^ 

We  see,  then,  that,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  internal 
evidence,  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  accepting  these  little 
Epistles.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  the  fact  that  St.  John  should 
call  himself  "the  Elder"  and  not  "the  Apostle."  The  dispute 
as  to  who  was  and  who  was  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  Apostle  had 
long  since  died  away.  St.  Paul  himself  does  not  always  care 
to  use  the  title.  He  drops  it,  for  instance,  in  addressing  those 
who,  like  the  Philippians  and  Philemon,  had  never  disputed 
his  apostolic  authority.  The  other  Apostles  were  all  dead. 
The  whole  Church  knew  that  St.  John  was  the  last  survivor 
of.  the  Twelve.  He  may  have  called  himself  "the  Elder"  out 
of  humanity;  just  as  Peter,  in  addressing  the  elders,  calls 
himself  their  "fellow-elder.  "^  Or  he  may  have  used  the  desig- 
nation because  he  belonged  to  that  class  of  aged  Christians  to 
whom,  at  this  time,  the  younger  generation  which  was  spring- 
ing up  around  them  often  appealed  under  the  name  of  '  'the 
Elders. ""*  Or,  again,  he  mayhave  called  himself  "the  Elder" 
because  he  desired  to  claim  no  higher  authority  than  that 
which  accrued  to  him  from  his  great  age  and  long  experience."* 
And  it  must  be  observed  that  he  calls  himself  "the  Elder," 
not  "an  Elder."  There  were  hundreds  of  elders,  and,  there- 
fore, by  calling  himself  "the  Elder"  in  a  pre-eminent  and 
peculiar  sense,  he  at  once  marks  his  age  and  authority.  The 
phraseology,  the  style,  the  tone  of  thought,  the  method  of 
treatment  in  every  sentence,  points  directly  to  the  authorship 
of  the  Apostle.  The  few  trivial  deviations  from  his  ordinary 
expressions  only  show  that  we  are  not  dealing  with  the  work 
of  an  elaborate  imitator.'^ 

I.  There  has  always  been  great  doubt  as  to  the  destination 
of  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  John.  Even  yet  the  question 
whether  it  was  addressed  to  a  lady  or  to  a  Church.cannot  be  re- 
garded as  settled.     It  begins  with  the  words,  "the  Elder  unto 

1  See  Excursus  XIV.,  "  Jolin  the  Apostle  and  John  tlie  Presbyter." 
•2  I  Pet.  V.  I,  OT»ju.7rpe<ri3uTepos  :  Philem.  9,  6  npea-pvTijg. 

3  Euseb.  //.  A',  iii.  39.  The  word  occurs  in  Irenseus  and  other  Johannine  writers  in  quo- 
tations from  the  Fathers  of  that  earlier  age. 

*  It  is  in  exact  accordance  with  his  modest  self-withdrawal.  In  the  Gospel  he  entirely 
suppresses  his  own  name,  as  in  the  Kirst  Epistle.  In  the  Apocalypse  he  only  calls  himself 
'•John."  So  far,  therefore,  the  absence  of  any  lofty  title,  such  as  a  fcjrger  might  have  given 
him,  is  a  mark  of  genuineness.  There  is  nothing  to  support  Ewald's  notion  that  it  was  due  to 
the  dangers  of  the  time. 

^  Such  are  ei  tis  for  eav  ti?  (2  John  10),  SiSaxv^'  <f>epeii',  irepinaTflv  Kara,  KOivoivelv,  fxei^o- 
Tepav,  as  pointed  out  by  De  Wette.  To  dwell  on  the  occurrence  of  a  few  jihrases  which  he 
had  no  occasion  to  use  elsewhere  (such  as  uyiatVetf,  <fn.\oTrp(aTev<av,  <|iAvapeit',  TrpoTre/ui'reij' 
a^io)^  Tov  ®eov),  is  idle. 


602  IHE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  Elect  Lady  and  her  children,  whom  I  love  in  the  truth; 
and  not  only  I,  but  also  all  who  have  learnt  to  know  the 
truth.'"  Certainly  th.Q  prima  facie  impression  created  by  the 
words  would  be  that  they  refer  to  a  lady.  In  that  case  the 
omission  of  the  article  seems  to  show  that  her  name  is  not 
mentioned.  For  if  either  Electa  or  Kyria  had  been  her  name, 
then,  just  as  we  have  "To  Gains,  the  beloved,"  in  the  address 
of  the  Third  Epistle,  we  should  naturally  have  expected  here, 
"To  Electa,  the  lady,"  or  "I'o  Kyria,  the  elect."  Nor  is 
this  objection  adequately  answered  by  saying  that  if  Kyria  was 
the  lady's  name,  the  article  might  have  been  omitted  by  an 
unconscious  analogy  of  the  use  of  the  word  Kurios,  "the 
Lord,"  without  an  article. 

a.  That  her  name  was  Electa^  is  asserted  in  the  Latin 
translation  of  the  fragments  of  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  where 
he  says,  "The  Second  Epistle  of  John,  which  was  written  to 
virgins,  is  very  simple;  it  was,  however,  written  to  a  Babylo- 
nian lady,  by  name  Electa."  It  may,  however,  be  regarded 
as  certain  that  this  is  a  mistake.  For  although  Electa  may 
h.ave  been  a  proper  name  in  the  Christian  Church,  yet  in  that 
case  the  meaning  of  verse  13  must  be,  "The  children  of  thy 
sister  Electa  greet  thee;"  and  it  is  highly  improbable  that 
i'otk  sisters  bore  this  very  unusual  name. 

/?.  But  may  it  be  addressed  to  a  lady  named  Kyria?^  Kyria 
was  a  female  name,  for  it  is  found  in  one  of  the  inscriptions 
recorded  in  Gruter;*  and  from  an  expression  of  Athanasius, 
"he  is  writing  to  Kyria  and  her  children,"  it  has  been  in- 
ferred that  this  was  his  view.  It  is  a  possible  view  in 
itself;  and  since  Kyria  may  be  the  Greek  equivalent  of  the 
Hebrew  name  Martha,  the  lady  may  have  been  a  Jewess. 
This  view  also  gets  over  the  difficulty  of  a  title  so  lofty  as 
Kyria,  which,  according  to  Bengel,  was  rarely  used  even  to 
(Queens.'  But  the  objection  still  remains  that  "we  should  then 
have  expected,  not  "To  elect  Kyria,"  but  "To  Kyria  the 
elect;"  just  as  in  the  next  Epistle  we  do  not  find  "To  beloved 
(iaius,"  but  "To  Gaius,  the  beloved." 


'  2  John  8  :  'O  Trpeo-^UTepo?  eKKsKTrj  Kvpla  koX  tois  reVi^ots  avri)?,  oO's  eyw  gLyarrS}  ev  aArj- 
0ti<f,  K.T.A.     The  possible  renderings  are  (in  order  of  their  possibility)— 

1.  To  an  elect  lady. 

2.  To  the  elect  lady 

3.  To  the  elect  Kyria. 

.  .  4.  To  the  lady  Electa. 

2  This  IS  the  view  of  T.yra,  Grotius,  Wetstein. 
»  This  is  the  view  of  Ucngel,  Heumann,  Liicke.  De  Wette,  and  DUsterdieck. 


*  (Jruter,  Inscript.  p.  1127,  "  Phenippus  and  his  wife  Kyria." 
'  See,  however,  the  following  note. 


THE   SECOND    EPISTLE   OF   ST.  JOHN.  663 

y.  But  if  we  must  render  the  words,  "To  an  elect  Lady," 
are  we  to  understand  by  them  a  person  or  a  Church? 

In  either  case,  the  person  or  the  Church  is  left  unnamed. 
The  modern  view  seems  to  incline  in  favour  of  a  Church.' 
All  sorts  of  conjectures  have  been  made  as  to  the  Church  in- 
tended, and  the  most  far-fetched  and  arbitrary  reasons  have 
been  assigned  for  supposing  that  it  was  addressed  to  the 
Church  of  Corinth, '•'  or  of  Philadelphia,''  or  of  Jerusalem,*  or 
of  Patmos,  or  of  Ephesus,  or  of  Babylon.^ 

2.  The  latter  is  the  view  of  Bishop  Wordsworth.  Starting 
from  the  ambiguous  expression  of  i  Pet.  v.  13,  "the  co-elect 
(7)  (Tvv€K\€KTri)  with  you  that  is  at  Babylon  saluteth  you,"  and 
interpreting  it  to  mean  the  Church  in  Babylon,  he  says  that 
it  is  a  greeting  of  the  Babylonian  Church  sent  through  St.  Peter 
to  the  Churches  of  Asia;  and* he  supposes  that  the  verse, 
"the  children  of  thy  sister,  the  elect  one,  greet  thee,"  is  a 
return  salutation  of  the  Churches  of  Asia,  through  St.  John, 
to  the  Church  of  Babylon.  He  thinks  that  this  is  rendered 
more  probable  by  the  close  relations  between  St.  Peter  and 
St  John;  and  he  finds  a  confirmation  of  it  in  the  remark  of 
Clemens  of  Alexandria,  that  the  letter  is  addressed  "to  a 
Babylonian  lady,"  and  in  the  curious  incidental  expression  in 
the  title  of  St.  Augustine's  tractate  on  the  Epistle,  "T^racta- 
tus  in  Epistolam  Johannis  ad  FartJios."'  At  this  time,  he  says, 
Babylon  was  under  the  rule  of  the  Parthians,  and,  therefore, 
a  letter  to  the  Babylonian  Church  might  have  been  called  "a 
letter  to  the  Parthians."  Further,  when  Clemens  says  that 
the  letter  was  written  "to  Virgins,"  he  thinks  that  the  Greek 
word  ''parthenous''  was  only  a  corruption  of  '' Farthoiisy 
Lastly,  he  adds  that  *  'there  would  be  a  peculiar  interest  and 
beauty  in  such  an  address  as  this  from  St.  John  to  a  Church 
at  Babylon,  which,  in  the  days  of  he;-  heathen  pride,  had  been 
called  'the  Lady  of  Kingdoms,'  and  had  said,  *I  shall  be  a 
Lady  for  ever.'  "°  Babylon  had  fallen;  but  St.  Peter  had 
preached  to  Parthians,  among  others,  on  the  Day  of  Pente- 
cost,' and  so  Babylon  had  arisen  again  in  Christ,  and  become 

1  So  Hofmann,  Hilgenfeld,  Huther,  Evvald,  Wordsworth.  On  the  other  hand.  Beng-;!, 
Fritzsche,  De  Wette,  Lange,  Heumann,  Alford,  Diisterdieck,  understand  a  person  to  be  ad- 
dressed. Epictetus  says  that  '•  women  from  the  age  of  fourteen  are  called  '  ladies'  (/cupiai) 
by  men."  ^  Serrarius.  ^  Whiston.  •*  Whitby  and  Augusti. 

^  'J'hc  notion  of  St.  Jerome  [E^.  xi.  ad  Agrruchiajn)  that  it  was  addressed  to  the  Church 
in  general  (though  adopted  by  Hilgenfeld),  may  be  at  once  dismissed.  Quoting  Cant.  vi.  9 as 
referring  to  the  Church,  he  adds,  "to  which  John  writes  his  Epistie,  'St.  John  to  an  Elect 
Lady.'  "  The  opinion  that  the  Lady  is  a  Church  is  mentioned  by  Q^cumenius,  Theophylact, 
and  Cassiodorus,  as  well  as  by  an  ancient  scholion. 

8  Is.  xlvii.  5,  7  ;  tl^Sa,  gevereth,  rendered  Kvpia  by  the  LXX.,  as  in  Gen.  xvi.  4,  etc. 

^  Acts  ii.  9. 


664  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

an  elect  Lady  in  Him,  and  could  be  addressed  as  such  by  the 
Apostolic  brother  of  St.  Peter,  the  beloved  disciple  St.  John, 
(i.)  I  must  confess  that  to  me  the  whole  theory  looks  like 
an  inverted  pyramid  of  inference  tottering  about  upon  its  ex- 
tremely narrow  apex.  The  phrase  of  St.  Peter  is  of  most  un- 
certain interpretation.  It  is  not  certain  that  by  *  'the  Co-elect" 
he  means  a  Church.  It  is  still  more  uncertain  that  by  Baby- 
lon he  means  Babylon  and  not  Rome.  We  may  say  of  the  very 
basis  on  which  the  theory  rests, — 

"  Nil  agit  exemplum  quod  litem  lite  resolvit." 

(ii.)  Then  the  theory  seems  to  imply  the  supposition  that 
St.  John  had  at  some  time  left  Asia  and  travelled  as  far  as 
Babylon — a  journey  intrinsically  improbable,  and  which  has 
left  no  trace  in  any  tradition -of  the  Apostle.  In  ecclesiastical 
legends  it  is  St.  Thomas  and  not  St.  John  who  is  sai^  tohave 
been  the  Apostle  of  the  Parthians. 

(iii.)  Next,  the  vague  tradition  that  the  Epistle  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  Parthians  is  devoid  of  even  the  slightest  value, 
for  it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  the  words  ''ad  Farthos'' 
ever  stood  in  the  original  editions  of  St.  Augustine's  Tractates; 
and  when  Bede  says  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  St.  Athanasius 
that  the  First  Epistle  was  addressed  "to  the  Parthians,"^  he 
is  almost  certainly  mistaken.  No  such  statement  is  found  in 
any  Greek  Father.  It  is  only  found,  according  to  Griesbach, 
in  some  late  and  unimportant  Latin  Fathers,  and  in  the  pas- 
.sage  of  St.  Augustine.^  Now  nothing  can  be  more  improb- 
able than  that  the  First  Epistle  was  addressed  to  the  Parthians,^ 
and  we  should  require  much  stronger  evidence  than  this  iso- 
lated allusion  of  St.  Augustine  to  establish  the  fact.  We  are 
driven  to  suppose  that  "ad  Parthos"  must  be  a  misreading. 
Serrarius  conjectures  that  it  should  be  ''ad  Fathniios,''  to  the 
people  of  Patmos,  but  tlftse  and  many  other  conjectural  em- 
endations have  nothing  to  support  them."  On  the  other  hand, 
the  word  Farthos  may  have  arisen  from  some  confusion  with 
Parthenon s,"  and  not,  as  Bishop  Wordsworth  supposes,  the 

>  Hede,  Prol.  ad  F.J>.  Cathol.  (Cave,  Hist.  Litt.  I.  289). 

2  Aug.  Quaest.  Ki>aug.  ii.  39.  "  Secundum  sententiam  banc  etiam  illud  est  quod  dic- 
t  im  est  a  Joanne  (i  John  iii.  2)  in  ef>istoln  ad  Parthos."  He  is  followed  by  the  Spaniard, 
Idacuis  Claru.s.  IIpos  Uapyous  i.s  found  in  superscriptions  of  the  Second  Epistle  in  some  late 
cursive  manuscripts. 

3  (Jrotius,  Hammond,  and  others  accepted  this  view  ;  and  Paulus  pressed  it  into  his  the- 
ories about  the  Kpisile. 

*  Semler  i^ues.ses  '' ada/>ertius  ;"  Paulus  ""ad  Pantas;"  and  Wcgscheider  Trpb?  rovs 
Sieanaparanti'ovi.  ad  S/ar.ws/  (see  Tholuck,  Introd.  p.  32  et  seq.). 

'^  So  Winston  conjectures.  For  Clemens  Alevundrinus.  in  his  Adumbrationes,  says  (in 
a  very  confused  passage)  tliat  the  Second  lOfiistle  was  written  "  to  Virsins."  which  is  mani- 
Icbtly  erroneous.     His  wordsarc— '*  Secunda  Joannis  cpistola  (\\xdiQad  Virgines  scripta  est, 


THE   SECOND    EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  C65 

latter  from  the  former.  The  sweet  and  lofty  simplicity  of  the 
First  Epistle  may  have  led  some  one  to  suggest  that  it  was 
written  to  Virgins — using  the  word  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
occurs  in  the  Rev.  xiv,  4 — namely,  to  youthful  and  uncorrupted 
Christians.  And  this  suggestion  may  have  derived  fresh  force 
from  the  ancient  belief  that  St.  John  himself  was  in  this  sense 
"a  Virgin"  {partJienos\'^  a  title  which  is  actually  given  to  him 
in  some  superscriptions  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  elsewhere.^ 

3.  But  if  Bishop  Wordsworth's  suggestion  comes  to  noth- 
ing, what  are  we  to  say  of  the  theories  of  German  critics? 
The  remarks  of  Baur  respecting  this  Epistle  exhibit,  almost 
in  their  culmination,  the  arbitrary  recklessness  of  conjecture 
whi<;h  has  defaced  the  usefulness  and  obliterated  the  exist- 
ence of  the  school  of  Tubingen.  His  combinations  are  briefly 
these: — Electa  is  a  Church;  she  is  called  a  Babylonian  by  St. 
Clemens  to  indicate  the  Church  of  Rome;  the  Epistle  ex- 
presses the  views  of  the  Montanists;  Diotrephes,  the  leader 
of  the  anti-Montanist  section  of  the  Church,  had  refused  to 
hold  communion  Vv^ith  them;  by  Diotrephes  is  meant,  not 
"Victor,"  as  Sch#egler  (by  a  demonstrable  anachronism)^ 
supposed,  but  perhaps  Anicetus,  Soter,  or  Eleutheros.  The 
writer  is  so  strong  a  partisan  as  to  describe  the  faction  of  Dio- 
trephes as  "heathens"'*  (3  John,  7)! 

4.  Not  much  more  reasonable  is  the  notion  of  Hilgenfeld 
that  the  Second  Epistle  was  sent  to  a  Church  as  a  letter  of 
excommunication  against  Gnostic  teachers,  and  the  Third  as 
a  letter  of  commendation  (ema-roAr/  o-vo-TartKr;)  to  Gains,  issued 
to  vindicate  against  judaising  Christians  the  right  of  St.  John 
as  well  as  of  St.  James  to  furnish  such  authorisations  to  travel- 
ling missionaries. 

5.  Nor  less  arbitrary  is  the  suggestion  of  Ewald  that  both 
the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  were  addressed  to  one  Church; 
that  it  must  have  been  an  important  Church,  because  three  of 
its  Elders — Diotrephes,  Demetrius,  and  Gains — are  mentioned; 
that  the  name  of  the  Church  is  omitted  because  it  would  have 
been  dangerous  to  mention  it;  and  that  the  Third  Epistle  was 
addressed  to  Gains  from  a  misgiving  that  Diotrephes  might 


simplicissima  est ;  "  then  after  saying  that  it  is  written  to  a  certain  FJahylonian  lady  named 
IClecta,  he  adds,  "  it  signifies,  however,  the  election  of  the  Holy  Church." 

1  Gieseler,  KirchengescU.  i.  p.  139. 

2  Tert.  de  Monog-avt.  c.  17;  Ps.-Ignat.  ad  Philad.  4;  Clem.  Alex.  Orat.  de  I\Taria. 
Virg.  p.  380.  In  a  cursive  manuscript  of  the  twellth  century  (30)  the  superscription  of  the 
Apocalypse  runs  thus— "  C)f  the  holy,  most  glorious  apostle  and  evangelist,  the  Virgin,  the 
beloved,  the  bosom  Apostle  [€in(TTi\9iov)  John,  the  Theologian." 

3  For  this  Epistle  is  quoted  long  before' Victor's  day  by  lreiia;us  and  Clemens  of  Alexandria. 
*  Baur,  Monianismus. 


666  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

suppress  the  first  letter,  and  prevent  it  from  being  publicly 
read  in  the  Church. 

Such  theories  are  not  worth  refuting.  They  might  be 
constructed  in  any  numbers.  They  are  mere  ropes  of  sand, 
which  fall  to  pieces  at  a  touch.  It  can  only  be  regarded  as  a 
misfortune  that  such  multitudes  of  them  should  cumber,  with 
their  useless  accumulations,  the  whole  field  of  exegesis.  They 
do  but  block  up  the  way  to  any  real  advance  in  our  knowledge 
of  the  history  of  the  early  Church.  I  would  say  of  them  what 
Baur  says  of  certain  theories  of  apologists:  "It  is  not  worth 
while  to  discuss  vague  hypotheses  which  have  no  support  in 
history  and  no  cohesion  in  themselves."^ 

While  I  do  not  deny  that  the  Elect  Lady  addressed  may 
have  been  a  Church,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  probable.  To 
say  that  the  Church  is  symbolised  as  a  woman  and  a  bride  in 
the  Apocalypse,  is  to  adduce  an  argument  which  bears  little 
on  the  matter.'^  The  question  is  not  whether  a  Church  might 
not  be  allegorically  called  *'a  Lady,"  which  every  one  admits, 
but  whether  it  is  natural  that,  in  a  short  and  simple  letter,  St. 
John  should,  from  first  to  last,  keep  up,  iif  this  one  particular, 
an  elaborate  allegory,  and,  unlike  the  other  Apostles,  address 
a  Church  as  if  he  were  writing  to  a  lady.  If  the  letter  were 
playful  or  mystic,  such  a  supposition  might  be  tolerable.  As 
it  is,  unless  there  be  some  unknown  factors  in  the  history  of 
the  circumstances  which  called  forth  the  letter,  it  would  seem 
to  savour  of  a  euphuism  unworthy  of  the  great  Apostle,  and 
alien  from  Apostolic  simplicity.  So  far  as  I  am  aw:are,  there 
is  not  another  instance  in  Christian  literature,  whether  Greek 
or  Latin,  whether  in  apostolic  or  post-apostolic  times,  in  which 
a  Church  is  called  Kyria,  or  addressed  throughout  as  a  lady. 

6.  I  take  the  letter,  then,  in  its  natural  sense,  as  having 
been  addressed  to  a  Christian  lady  and  her  children.  Some  of 
those  children  the  Apostle  seems  to  have  met  in  one  of  his 
visits  of  supervision  to  the  Churches  of  Asia.  They  may  have 
been  on  a  visit  to  some  of  their  cousins  in  a  neighbouring 
city,  and  St.  John — always  attracted  by  sympathy  towards  the 
young — finding  that  they  were  living  as  faithful  Christian 
lives,  writes  news  of  them  to  their  mother,  whom  he  held  in 
high  esteem;  and  in  writing  seizes  the  opportunity  to  add  some 
words  of  Christian  teaching.  That  St.  John  should  write  to 
a  Christian  lady  has  in  it  nothing  extraordinary.    Women  like 

'  Baur,  Ch.  Hist.  i.  131. 
_  "^  Rev.  xil.  1-17;  xxi.   9.     To  say  that 'EKAeACT»>  means  "a  Church"  in  Cant.  vi.  8,  ri? 
a.vn\  iicXfKTjj  w;  6  TJAtos,  is  to  pass  off  excgctical  fancies  as  settled  truths. 


THE   SECOND    EPISTLE    OF   ST.    JOHN.  66/ 

Priscilla,  Lydia,  and  Phoebe  played  no  small  part  in  the  early 
spread  of  Christian  truth.  They  represented  that  ennoble- 
ment of  Christian  womanhood  which  was  one  of  the  great  re- 
sults of  Christian  preaching;  and  they  inspired  the  Apostles 
with  a  warm  sentiment  of  affection  and  esteem.'  That  the 
lady  should  be  left  unnamed  is  in  accordance  with  the  feelings 
of  the  day.  It  was  against  the  common  feelings  both  of  Jews 
and  (jreeks  that  virtuous  matrons  should  be  thrust  into  need- 
less prominence.  St.  Paul  indeed  names  them  whem  occasion 
demands.  In  writing  to  the  Philippians,  among  whom  women 
occupied  a  more  recognised  position  than  among  other  Roman 
communities,  he  makes  a  personal  appeal  to  the  two  ladies 
P^jodias  and  Syntyche;"  and  he  sends  salutations  to  and  from 
women  among  others.  Yet  he  never  wrote  a  letter,  so  far  as 
we  know,  even  to  Lydia  or  to  Priscilla,  to  whom  he  was  so 
much  indebted;  and  if  he  had  written  such  a  letter — intended 
(as  this  letter  of  St.  John's  may  well  have  been)  for  perusal 
by  all  the  members  of  the  Church,  and  even  meant  to  be  read 
aloud  to  them  in  their  congregation — it  is  probable  that  he 
would  have  left  the  name  unmentioned.  Much  more  would 
this  have  been  the  tiatural  feeling  of  St.  John,  who  had  lived 
most  of  his  life  in  Jerusalem.  He  would  have  been  less  in- 
clined to  infringe  on  the  seclusion  which  was  the  ordinary 
position  of  Eastern  womanhood,  because  his  experiences  had 
been  less  cosmopolitan  than  those  of  his  brother  Apostles. 
Who  the  Elect  Lady  was  we  do  not  know,  and  never  shall 
know.  To  suggest,  as  some  have  done,  that  she  may  have  been 
Martha  the  sister  of  Lazarus,^  or  the  Mother  of  our  Lord,"  is 
to  be  guilty  of  the  idle  and  reprehensible  practice  of  suggest- 
ing theories  which  rest  on  the  air,  and  are  not  even  worth  the 
trouble  of  a  serious  refutation. 

Nor  is  there  anything  to  indicate  where  these  letters  were 
written.  They  may  have  been  sent  from  either  Patmos  or 
Ephesus.  Eusebius  says  that  they  were  written  at  Ephesus 
before  a  tour  of  pastoral  visitation.'' 

The  analysis  of  the  letter  is  extremely  simple.  After  a 
kindly  greeting  (i — 3),  he  tells  this  Christian  matron  of  his  joy 
in  finding  that  some  of  her  children  (whom  he  had  chanced 
to  encounter)  were  walking  in  the  truth  (4).  He  enforces  on 
her  the  commandment  of  (Christian  love,  which  is  both  new 
and   old   (5,   6);    warns  her  against  dangerous   antichristian 


1  See  Acts  xvi.  14 :  xviii.  2,  etc.  ;  and  St.  Paul's  salutation  to  nine  Christian  women,  in 
Rom.  xvi.  2  phij    iy   2.  "  Carpzov.  Martha  =  Kvpia, 

*  Knauer,  S/ut/.  u,  Krit.  1833.  '  Kuseb.  //.  E.  iii.  aj. 


66S  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

teachers  (7 — 9),  to  whose  errors  she  is  not  to  lend  the  sanction 
of  her  hospitaHty  or  countenance  (10,  11),  and  concludes  with 
the  expression  of  a  hope  that  he  may  soon  visit  her  and  her 
family,  and  with  a  greeting  from  the  children  of  her  Christian 
sister  (12,  13).  The  keynotes  of  the  Epistle,  as  indicated  by 
its  most  prominent  words,  are  Truth  and  Love.  Truth  occurs 
five  times  and  Love  four  times  in  these  few  verses. 

"  The  Elder  to  the  elect  Lady*  and  her  children  whom  I  love  in  Truth, 2  and 
not  I  alone,  but  also  all  who  have  learnt  to  know  the  Truth, ^  because  of  the 
Truth  which  abideth  in  us,  and  shall  be  \\ith  us  for  ever.*  Grace,  mercy,  peace, ^ 
shall  be  with  us«  from  God  oiu"  Father,  and  from  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  the 
Father,  in  Truth  and  Love. 

"  I  rejoice' greatly  because  I  have  found  some  of  thy  children  ^  walking  in 
Truth,  even  as  we  received  commandment  from  the  Father. 

"  And  now »  I  entreat  thee.  Lady,  not  as  writing  to  thee  a  new  commandment, 
but  that  which  we  had  from  the  beginning,!"  that  we  love  one  another.  And  this 
is  love,  that  we  should  walk  according  to  His  commandments. '^  This  is  the 
commandment,  even  as  ye  heard  from  the  beginning,  that  ye  should  walk  in  it. 
Because  many  deceivers  went  forth  1-  into  the  world,  such  as  confess  not  Jesus 
Christ  coming  in  the  flesh,  i^  This  is  the  deceiver  and  the  Antichrist.  Take 
heed  to  yourselves  that  ye  lose  not  what  we  have  wrought, 1*  but  that  ye  receive 
a  full  reward.  Every  one  who  goeth  forward  '•^  and  abideth  not  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Christ,  hath  not  God.  He  who  abideth  in  the  teaching,  he  hath  both  the 
Father  and  the  Son,    If  anyone  cometh  to  you,''  and  ^ringeth  not  this  doctrine, 

'  Comp.  cKAe/cTOis  7rape7rt8i7juioi9,  i  Pet.  i.  1. 

-  Truth  is  here  used  in  the  Johannine  sense — the  realm  of  eternal  reality.  "Whom  I  iove 
in  the  truth  of  the  Gospel." 

^  It  has  been  thought  that  this  expression  is  too  wide  to  apply  to  a  single  person,  but  it 
merely  means  that  all  Christians  who  know  the  character  of  the  lady  and  her  children  love  her. 

*  Comp.  John  xiv.  16,  17. 

^  "  Votuu)  cum  affirmatione"  (Hengel).     A  wish,  with  the  assurance  that  it  will  be  fulfilled. 

^  For  the  full  meaning  of  this  tciple  greeting  see  my  Li/e  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  516. 
"  Grace  "  refers  to  man's  sin  ;  "  mercy  "  to  his  misery  ;  "  peace  "  is  the  total  result  to  both  ; 
and  all  tliret;  work  in  the  region  of  truth  and  love.  "  Gratia  tollit  culpam  7nise?-icoT  dia  mi- 
.seriam, /«.v  dicit  permansionem  in  gratia  ex  misericordia  "  (Hengel). 

''  I.it.  "I  rejoiced,"  but  it  is  the  epistolary'  aorist.  "  Avete,  filii  et  filiae,  in  nomine  Domini 
nostri  Christi  in  pace;  supra  modum  exhilaror  beatis  et  praeclaris  spiritibus  vestris"  (Ps.- 
l^aniab.  A'/,  i.). 

"  kiav,  3  John  3.  This  does  not  of  course  necessarily  imply  that  some  were  not  so  walk- 
ing.    Probably  St.  John  had  only  met  some  of  them. 

*  The  words  mark  a  transition,  as  in  i  John  ii.  28,  epwrw.  See  on  i  John  v.  16.  "Blan- 
dior  Quaedam  admoncndi  ratio"  (Schlichting).  10  See  on  i  John  ii.  7,  8  ;  iii.  11. 

'1  The  s.ame  identification  of  love  with  (jbedience  which  we  have  found  in  i  John  ii.  6-10, 
^'^'     ■{''I''^''''"'  not  j?«fA$-/,v,  is  the  true  test  of  f:\ithful  discipleship. 

'-  k^r\KQov,  J{,  A,  15,  Syriac,  Vulgate,  Irenacus.  Not  "came  in,"  the  reading  adopted  by 
our  !•:.  y.     Comp,  i  John  ii.  18,  22  ;  iv.  1-3. 

'^  The  presr'ttt  participle  is  used  to  make  the  expression  as  general  as  possible.  They  de- 
nied the  possibility  of  the  Incarnation.  See  1  John  ii.  18,  22  ;  iv.  2  ;  v.  6.  They  seem  to  have 
been  Docetic  Gnostics. 

'••  The  readings  vary  greatly  between  the  first  and  second  persons.  Matt.  ix.  37  ;  2  Tim.  ii. 
15  :  John  vi.  29.  'J'he  lo.is  which  takes  off  from  the  ful'  reward  is  explained,  in  the  next  verse, 
to  be  separation  fn)m  God. 

'*  'J'he  true  reading  is  not  "  who  transgresseth  "  (7ropa)3aiVw»'),  but  Trpoa-y/wf,  }<,  A,  13,  Vulg. 
Not,  as  some  commentators  here  hint,  as  though  .all  progress  in  Chrihtian  thought  was  a  crime, 
and  mcapacity  to  advance  beyond  stereotyped  prejudice  a'viitue,  but  referring  either  (1)  to 
advance  in  ivron^c;-  directions,  or  (2)  to  Christian  teachers  who  go  before  their  flocks  (John  x. 
4  :  Mark  x.  32). 

'•  The  indicative  following  ei,  implies  that  such  will  come.  He  is  not  of  course  thinking 
of  heathens,  but  of  Christian  false  prophets. 


THE    SECOND    EPLSTLE    OE    ST.    JOIL^J.  669 

receive  him  not  into  your  house,  and  bid  liim  not  '  good  speed. '     For  he  who 
biddeth  him  '  good  speed  '  partakes  in  his  evil  deeds.i 

"  llaving  many  things  t«  write  to  you,  I  prefer '■^  not  to  do  so  by  paper  and 
inlc,^  but  I  hope  to  come  to  you,'  and  to  speak  mouth  to  mouth,''  that  your  joy 
may  be  fulfilled.*^     The  children  of  thy  elect  sister  greet  thee.  "  '' 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  at  a  glance,  that  Truth  and  Love  are 
key-notes  of  the  Epistle,  and  that  the  conceptions  which  prevail 
throughout  it  are  those  with  which  we  have  been  made  fami- 
liar by  the  previous  Epistle.  And  yet  one  passage  of  the  Epis- 
tle has  again  and  again  been  belauded,  and  is  again  and  again 
adduced  as  a  stronghold  of  intolerance,  an  excuse  for  pitiless 
hostility  against  all  who  differ  from  ourselves."  There  is 
something  distressing  in  the  swift  instinct  with  which  an  un- 
christian egotism  has  first  assumed  its  own  infallibility  on  sub- 
jects which  are  often  no  part  of  Christian  faith,  and  then  has 
sped  as  on  vulture's  wings  to  this  passage  as  a  consecration 
of  the  feelings  with  which  the  odium  thcologicuin  disgraces  and 
ruins  the  Divinest  interests  of  the  cause  of  Christ.  It  must 
be  said — though  I  say  it  with  the  deepest  sorrow — that  the 
cold  exclusiveness  of  the  Pharisee,  the  bitter  ignorance  of  the 
self-styled  theologian,  the  usurped  infallibility  of  the  half- 
educated  religionist,  have  ever  been  the  curse  of  Christianity. 
They  have  imposed  "the  senses  of  men  upon  the  words  of 
God,  the  special  senses  of  men  on  the  general  words  of  God," 
and  have  tried  to  enforce  them  on  all  men's  consciences  with 
all  kinds  of  burnings  and  anathemas,  under  equal  threats  of 
death  and  damnation.^  And  thus  they  have  incurred  the  ter- 
rible responsibility  of  presenting  religion  to  mankind  in  a  false 
and  repellent  guise.  Is  theological  hatred  still  to  be  a  pro- 
verb for  the  world's  just  contempt?  Is  such  hatred — hatred  in 
its  bitterest  and  most  ruthless  form — to  be  regarded  as  the 


1  See  below.  The  meaning  of  course  is  that  we  are  not  to  ^ive  to  fundamental  hespsy  an 
appearance  of  approval  by  pronouncing  the  deeper  fraternal  greeting^.  In  some  versions  are 
here  interpolated  tiic  words,  "  Ecce  praedixi  vobis  ne  in  diem  domini  condcmnemini." 

2  Epistolary  aorist. 

3  If  the  letter  was  written  at  Patmos,  these  materials  might  not  readily  be  procurable.  The 
word  xaprrjs  means  Egyptian  papyrus.  For  the -manner  in  which  it  was  prepared,  see  Pliny, 
//.  N.  xiii.  21.     The  ink  was  made  of  soot  and  water,  mixed  with  gum. 

^  yeviaOai  jrpbs  VM^9.      I'he  same  Greek  construction  as  in  John  vi.  25. 

s  A  Hebraism,  nr^VN    712  (Jer.  xxxii.  4  ;  3  John  14).  "  i  John  i.  4. 

'  "  Suavisstma  coinmuiiitas  !  comitas  Apostoll  minorum  verbis  salutem  nunciantis"  (I'en- 
gel).  It  is  impossible  to  say  why  the  sister  herself  sends  no  greetings.  We  can  liardly  sup- 
pose that  she  was  dead,  because  she  is  called  "  thy  c^ect  sister."  Hut  we  may  suggest  a  score 
of  hypotheses  which  would  suffice  to  explain  the  circumstance.  Bengel  says,  "  Hos  liberos 
(ver.  4)  in  dome  matertcrae  eoruni  invenerat." 

^  Thus  on  the  strength  of  this  text  John  a  Lascn.  having  been  expelled  from  England  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Mary  in  1553,  was,  with  his  congregation,  refused  admission  into  Denmark 
(Salig.  Htst.  Conf.  Aii,ic.  ii.  1090;  quoted  by  V,rM.\wc  ad  loc.  in  Langc's  li/lwht'cr/i).  Thus 
by  the  manipulation  of  a  few  phrases  Hate  is  made  to  wear  the  gui.se  of  Love,  and  Fury  to 
pose  as  Christian  meekness.  "  Chillinsworth. 


670  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


legitimate  and  normal  outcome  of  the  religion  of  love?  Is  the 
spirit  of  peace  never  to  be  brought  to  bear  on  religious  opin- 
ions? Are  such  questions  always  to  excite  the  most  intense 
animosities  and  the  most  terrible  divisions?  Is  the  Diotrephes 
of  each  little  religious  clique  to  be  the  ideal  of  a  Christian 
character?  Is  it  in  religious  discussions  alone  that  impartiality 
is  to  be  set  down  as  weakness,  and  courtesy  as  treason?  Is  it 
among  those  only  who  pride  themselves  on  being  "orthodox" 
that  there  is  to  be  the  completest  absence  of  humility  and  of 
justice?  Is  the  world  to  be  for  ever  confirmed  in  its  opinion 
that  theological  partisans  are  less  truthful,  less  candid,  less 
high-minded,  less  honourable  even  than  the  partisans  of  politi- 
cal and  social  causes  who  make  no  profession  as  to  the  duty 
of  love?  Are  the  so-called  "religious"  champions  to  be  for 
ever,  as  they  now  are,  in  many  instances,  the  most  unscrupu- 
lously bitter  and  the  most  conspicuously  unfair?  Alas!  they 
might  be  so  with  far  less  danger  to  the  cause  of  religion  if 
they  would  forego  the  luxury  of  "quoting  Scripture  for  their 
purpose."  The  harm  which  has  thus  been  done  is  incred- 
ible:— 

"  Crime  was  ne'er  so  black 
As  ghostlj'  cheer  ami  pious  thanks  to  kick. 
Satan  is  modest.     At  Heaven's  door  he  lays 
His  evil  offspring,  and  in  Scriptural  phrase 
And  saintly  posture  gives  to  God  the  praise 
And  honour  of  his  monstrous  progeny." 

If  tnis  passage  of  St.  John  had  indeed  authorised  such 
errors  and  excesses — if  it  had  indeed  been  a  proof,  as  has 
been  said,  of  "the  deplorable  growth  of  dogmatic  intoler- 
ance"'— it  would  have  been  hard  to  separate  it  from  the  old 
spirit  of  rigorism  and  passion  which  led  the  Apostle,  in  his 
most  undeveloped  days,  to  incur  his  Lord's  rebuke,  by  pro- 
claiming his  jealousy  of  those  who  worked  on  different  lines 
from^his  own,  and  by  wishing  to  call  down  fire  to  consume  the 
rude  villagers  of  Samaria.  It  would  have  required  some  in- 
genuity not  to  see  in  it  the  same  sort  of  impatient  and  unwor- 
thy intolerance  which'  once  marked  his  impetuous  outbursts, 
but  which  is  (I  trust  falsely)  attributed  to  him  in  the  silly  story 
of  Cerinthus  and  the  bath.  In  that  case  also  the  spirit  of  his 
advice  would  have  been  widely  different  from  the  spirit  which 
actuated  the  merciful  tolerance  of  the  Lord  to  Heathens,  to 
Samaritans,  to  Sadducees,  and  even  to  Pharisees.  It  would 
have  been  in  direct  antagonism  to  our  Lord's  command  to  the 
Twelve  to  salute  with   their  blessing  every  house  to  which 

•  So  Renan,  in  his  article  on  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the  Contemp.  Rev.  Sept.  1877. 


THE   SECOiND   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  67 1 

they  came,  because  if  it  were  not  worthy  their  peace  would 
return  to  them  again.'  It  would  have  been  aHen  from  many 
of  the  noblest  lessons  of  the  New  Testament.  It  would  prac- 
tically have  excluded  from  the  bosom  of  Christianity,  and  of 
Christianity  alone,  the  highest  workings  of  the  universal  law 
of  love.  It  would  have  been  in  glaring  disaccord  with  the 
gentleness  and  moderation  which  is  now  shown,  even  towards 
absolute  unbelievers,  by  the  wisest,  gentlest,  and  most  Christ- 
like of  God's  saints.  If  it  really  bore  the  sense  which  has 
been  assigned  to  it,  it  would  be  a  grave  reason  for  sharing  the 
ancient  doubts  respecting  the  genuineness  of  the  little  letter 
in  which  it  occurs,  and  for  coming  to  the  conclusion  that, 
while  its  general  sentiments  were  borrowed  from  the  authentic 
works  cf  St.  John,  they  had  only  been  thrown  together  for 
the  purpose  of  introducing,  under  the  sanction  of  -his  name,  a 
precept  of  unchristian  harshness  and  religious  intolerance. 

But  there  is  too  much  reason  to  fear  that  to  the  end  of 
time  the  conceit  of  orthodoxism  will  claim  inspired  authority 
for  its  own  conclusions,  even  when  they  are  most  antichris- 
tian,  and  will  build  up  systems  of  exclusive  hatred  out  of  in- 
ferences purely  unwarrantable.  It  is  certain,  too,  that  each 
sect  is  always  tempted  to  be  proudest  of  its  most  sectarian 
peculiarities;  that  each  form  of  dissent,  whether  in  or  out  of 
the  body  of  the  Established  C.hurches,  most  idolises  its  own 
dissidence.  The  aim  of  religious  opinionativeness  always  has 
been,  and  always  will  be,  to  regard  its  narrowest  conclusions 
as  matters  of  faith,  and  to  exclude  or  excommunicate  all  those 
who  reject  or  modify  them.  The  sort  of  syllogisms  used  by 
these  enemies  of  the  love  of  Christ  are  much  as  follows: — 

"J/y  opinions  are  founded  on  interpretations  of  Scripture. 
Scripture  is  infallible.  My  views  of  its  meaning  are  infallible 
too.  Voi/r  opinions  and  inferences  differ  from  mine,  there- 
fore you  musf  be  in  the  wrong.  All  wrong  opinions  are 
capable  of  so  many  ramifications  that  any  one  who  differs  from 
me  in  minor  points  must  be   unsound  in  vital  matters  also. 

1  It  is  said  that  Polycarp  was  once  accosted  by  Marcion,  and  asked  by  him,  "  Dost  thou 
not  know  me  ?  "  "  Yes,"  he  answered,  "  I  know  thee,  the  firstborn  of  Satan  "  ([ren.  r.  Haer. 
iii.  3  ;  Euseb.  //.  E.  iv.  14).  "  So  cautious,"  adds  Irenseus,  "  were  the  Apostles  and  their 
followers  to  have  no  communication — no,  not  so  much  as  in  discourse — with  those  who  adulte- 
rated the  truth."  I'he  story,  as  might  have  been  e.vpected,  is  told  by  other  ecclesiastical 
writers  with  intense  gusto,  down  to  modern  days.  J'.ut  even  if  it  be  true,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  the  example  was  estimable.  St.  Polycarp  was  just  as  liable  to  sin  and  error  as 
other  saints  have  been.  We  have  no  right  to  treat  any  man  with  rude  discourtesy.  If  to  be 
a  Christian  is  to  act  as  Christ  acted,  then  Polycarp's  discourtesy  was  unchristian.  Pharisees 
openly  rejected  our  Lord,  yet  He  even  accepted  their  invitations,  and  told  His  Disciples  to 
show  them  honour.  Is  a  heretic  so  much  worse  than  a  heathen,  that  a  Christian  wife  niij^ht 
live  with  a  heathen  husband  ^i  Cnr.  vii.  12.  13),  while  yet  a  Christian  might  not  even  speak 
without  the  grossest  rudeness  to  a  Gnostic  teacher  V 


6/2  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Therefore,  all  who  differ  from  me  and  my  clique  are  'here- 
tics.' All  heresy  is  wicked.  All  heretics  are  necessarily 
wicked  men.  It  is  my  religious  duty  to  hate,  calumniate,  and 
abuse  you." 

Those  who  have  gone  thus  far  in  elevating  Hatred  into  a 
Christan  virtue  ought  logically  to  go  a  little  farther.  They 
generally  do  so  when  they  have  the  power.  They  do  not 
openly  say,  "Let  us  venerate  the  examples  of  Arnold  of  Cite- 
aux,  and  of  Torquemada.  Let  us  glorify  the  Crusaders  at 
Beziers.  Let  us  revive  the  racks  and  thumbscrews  of  the  In- 
quisition. Let  us,  with  the  Pope,  strike  medals  in  honour  of 
the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew.  Let  us  re-establish  the  Star 
Chamber,  and  entrust  those  ecclesiastics  who  hold  our  opinions 
with  powers  of  torture."  But,  since  they  are  robbed  of  these 
means  of  securing  unanimity — since  they  can  no  longer  even 
imprison  "dissenting  tinkers"  like  Bunyan  and  "regicide 
Arians"  like  Milton — they  are  too  apt  to  indulge  in  the  party 
spirit  which  can  employ  slander  though  it  is  robbed  of  the 
thumbscrew,  and  revel  in  depreciation  though  it  may  no  longer 
avail  itself  of  the  fagot  and  the  rack. 

The  tender  mercies  of  contending  religionists  are  excep- 
tionally cruel.  The  men  who,  in  the  Corinthian  party-sense, 
boast  "I  am  of  Christ,"  do  not  often,  in  these  days,  formu- 
late the  defence  of  their  lack  of  charity  so  clearl}'-  as  this.  But 
they  continually  act  and  write  in  this  spirit.  Long  experience 
has  made  mankind  familiar  with  the  base  ingenuity  which 
frames  charges  of  constructive  heresy  out  of  the  most  inno- 
cent opinions;  which  insinuates  that  variations  from  the  vulgar 
exegesis  furnish  a  sufficient  excuse  for  banding  anathemas, 
under  the  plea  that  they  are  an  implicit  denial  of  Christ!  Had 
there  been  in  Scripture  any  sanction  for  this  execrable  spirit 
of  heresy-hunting  Pharisaism,  Christian  theology  would  only 
become  another  name  for  the  collisions  of  wrangling  sects,  all 
cordially  hating  each  other,  and  only  kept  together  by  com- 
mon repulsion  against  external  enmity.  But,  to  riie  at  least,  it 
seems  that  the  world  has  never  developed  a  more  unchristian 
and  antichristian  phenomenon  than  the  conduct  of  those  who 
encourage  the  bitterest  excesses  of  hatred  under  the  profession 
of  Christian  love.'  I  know  nothing  so  profoundly  irreligious 
as  the  narrow  intolerance  of  an  ignorant  dogmatism.  Had 
there  been  anything  in  this  passage  which  sanctioned  so  odi- 
ous a  spirit,  I  could  not  have  believed  that  it  emanated  from 


'  I  John  iii.  lo, 


THE   SECOND    EPISTLE    OF   ST.    JOHN.  6/3 

St.  John.  A  good  tree  does  not  bring  forth  corrupt  fruit. 
The  sweet  fountain  of  Christianity  cannot  send  forth  the  salt 
and  bitter  water  of  fierceness  and  hate.  The  Apostle  of  love 
would  have  belied  all  that  is  best  in  his  own  teaching  if  he 
had  consciously  given  an  absolution,  nay,  an  incentive,  to 
furious  intolerance.  The  last  words  of  Christian  revelation 
could  never  have  meant  what  these  words  have  been  inter- 
preted to  mean — namely,  "Hate,  exclude,  anathematise,  per- 
secute, treat  as  enemies  and  opponents  to  be  crushed  and  in- 
sulted, those  who  differ  from  you  in  religious  opinions." 
Those  who  have  pretended  a  Scriptural  sanction  for  such 
Cain-like  religionism  have  generally  put  their  theories  into 
practice  against  men  wiio  have  been  infinitely  more  in  the 
right,  and  transcendently  nearer  God,  than  those  who,  in  kill- 
ing or  injuring  them,  ignorantly  thought  that  they  were  doing 
God  service. 

Meanwhile  this  incidental  expression  of  St.  John's  brief 
letter  will  not  lend  itself  to  these  gross  perversions.  What  St. 
John  really  says^  and  7-eally  j?ieans^  is  something  wholly  differ- 
ent. False  teachers  were  rife,  who,  professing  to  be  Chris- 
tians, robbed  the  nature  of  Christ  of  all  which  gave  its  efficacy 
to  the  Atonement,  and  its  significance  to  the  Incarnation. 
These  teachers,  like  other  Christian  missionaries,  travelled 
from  city  to  city,  and,  in  the  absence  of  public  inns,  were  re- 
ceived into  the  houses  of  Christian  converts.  The  Christian 
lady  to  whom  St.  John  writes  is  warned  that,  if  she  offers  her 
hospitality  to  these  dangerous  emissaries  who  were  subverting 
the  central  truth  of  Christianity,  she  is  expressing  a  public 
sanction  of  them;  and,  by  doing  this  and  offering  them  her 
best  \vishes,  she  is  taking  a  direct  share  in  the  harm  they  do. 
This  is  common  sense;  nor  is  there  anything  uncharitable  in 
it.  No  one  is  bound  to  help  forward  the  dissemination  of 
teaching  what  he  regards  as  erroneous  respecting  the  most 
essential  doctrines  of  his  own  faith.  Still  less  would  it  have 
been  right  to  do  this  in  the  days  when  Christian  communities 
were  so  small  and  weak.  But  to  interpret  this  as  it  has  in  ali 
ages  been  practically  interpreted — to  pervert  it  into  a  sort  of 
command  to  exaggerate  the  minor  variations  between  religious 
opinions,  and  to  persecute  those  whose  views  differ  from  our 
own — to  make  our  own  opinion  the  exclusive  test  of  heresy, 
and  to  say,  with  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  that  this  verse  reprobates 
"all  conversation,  all  intercourse,  all  dealings  with  heretics" 
— is  to  interpret  Scripture  by  the  glare  of  partisanship  and  spirit- 
ual self-satisfaction,  not  to  read  it  under  the  light  of  holy  love. 
43 


674  'I'J"'    KARLV   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Alas!  churchmen  and  theologians  have  found  it  a  far  more 
easy  and  agreeable  matter  to  obey  their  distortion  of  this  sup- 
posed command,  and  even  to  push  its  stringency  to  the  very 
farthest  limits,  than  to  obey  the  command  that  we  should 
love  one  another!  From  the  Tree  of  delusive  knowledge  they 
pluck  the  poisonous  and  inflating  fruits  of  pride  and  hatred, 
while  they  suffer  the  fruits  of  love  and  meekness  to  fall  ne- 
glected from  the  Tree  of  Life.  The  popularity  which  these 
verses  still  enjoy,  and  the  exaggerated  misinterpretations  still 
attached  to  them,  are  due  to  the  fact  that  they  are  so  accept- 
able to  the  arrogance  and  selfishness,  the  dishonesty  and 
tyranny,  the  sloth  and  obstinacy,  of  that  bitter  spirit  of  re- 
ligious discord  which  has  been  the  disgrace  of  the  Church 
and  the  scandal  of  the  world. 


CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

THE    THIRD    EPISTLE    OF    ST,    JOHN. 
**  Kx  operibus  cogiioscitur  valetudo  animae,  et  banc  prosequuntur  vota  Sanctorum." 

— liENGEL. 

Nothing  can  be  ascertained  respecting  the  Gains  to  whom 
this  letter  is  addressed,  beyond  what  the  letter  itself  implies — 
that  he  was  a  faithful  and  kind-hearted  Christian.  I  have 
already  explained  that,  from  the  circumstances  of  the  time, 
hospitality  to  Christian  teachers  was  a  necessary  duty,  without 
which  the  preaching  of  Christianity  could  hardly  have  been 
carried  on.'  Gains,  like  his  namesake  at  Corinth,^  and  like 
Philemon,'  distinguished  himself  by  the  cheerfulness  with 
which  he  performed  this  duty.  It  could  not  always  have^been 
an  easy  or  an  agreeable  duty,  for  some  of  the  Christian  emis- 
saries, and  especially  those  from  Jerusalem,  seem,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  St.  Paul,  to  have  behaved  with  an  inso- 
lence and  rapacity  truly  outrageous.*  But  those  to  whom 
(iaius  opened  his  hospitable  house  were  not  of  this  character. 
They  were  men  who  had  followed  the  noble  initiative  of  St. 
Paul,  and  who  refused  to  receive  anything  from  the  Gentiles 
to  whom  they  preached. 

Some,  from  the  identity  of  name  and  character,  have  as- 
sumed that  the  Gains  here  addressed  must  have  been  the 
Gaius  of  Corinth.  Such  an  inference  is  most  precarious. 
Gaius  was,  perhaps,   the   commonest  of   all   names   current 


1 1 


»  Hence  the  importance  attached  to  it  (Rom.  xii.  13  ;  1  Tim.  iii. 
*='-  '^-  9)-  '  Rom.  xvi.  23  ;  x  Cor.  i.,14.  3  Phi 


2  ;  Tit.  i.  8  :  Heb.  xiii.  2  ; 
lem.  7.        *  2  Cor.  xi.  ao. 


THE   THIRD    EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  675 

throughout  the  Roman  Empire.  So  common  was  it  that  it 
was  selected  in  the  Roman  law-books  to  serve  the  familiar  pur- 
pose of  John  Doe  and  Richard  Roe  in  our  own  legal  formu- 
laries.    It  no  more  serves  to  identify  the  bearer  of  the  name 

than  if  it  had  been  addressed  '  'To  the  well-beloved  • ,"  for 

Gaius  was  colloquially  used  for  "so-and-so."'  There  are  at 
least  three  Gaiuses  in  the  New  Testament — Gaius  of  Mace- 
donia (Acts  xix.  29),  Gaius  of  Corinth  (Rom.  xvi.  23),  and 
Gaius  of  Derbe  (Acts  xx.  4).  A  Gaius  is  mentioned  in  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  (vii.  40),  as  Bishop  of  Pergamum,  and 
it  is  not  impossible  that  this  may  be  the  person  here  addressed. 
The  main  object  of  the  letter  v/as  to  encourage  him  in  his 
course  of  Christian  faithfulness,  and  to  contrast  his  conduct 
with  that  of  the  domineering  Diotrephes.  Diotrephes,  in  his 
ambition,  his  arbitrariness,  his  arrogance,  his  tendency  to  the 
idle  babble  of  controversy,  and  his  fondness  for  excommunica- 
ting his  opponents,  furnishes  us  with  a  very  ancient  specimen 
of  a  character  extremely  familiar  in  the  annals  of  ecclesiasti- 
cism.^  There  is  something  astonishing  in  the  notion  that  the 
prominent  Christian  Presbyter  of  an  Asiatic  Church  should  not 
only  repudiate  the  authority  of  St.  John,  and  not  only  refuse 
to  receive  his  travelling  missionary,  and  to  prevent  others  from 
doing  so,  but  should  even  excommunicate  those  who  did  so! 
But  we  must  leave  the  difficulty  where  it  is,  since  we  are  un- 
able to  throw  any  light  upon  it.  The  condition  of  the  Church 
of  Corinth,  as  St.  Paul  described  it,  leaves  us  prepared  for  the 
existence  of  almost  any  irregularities.  The  history  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  from  the  earliest  down  to  the  latest  days, 
teems  with  subjects  for  perplexity  and  surprise. 

"  The  Elder  to  Gains  the  beloved,  whom  I  love  in  Truth.  ^ 

"Beloved,   I  pray  that  in  all  respects*  thou  may  est  prosper, ^  and  be  in 

health,"  even  as  thy  soul  prospereth.     For  I  rejoice  exceedingly  at  the  arrival 

of  brethren  who  bear  witness  to  thy  Truth,  even  as  thou  walkest  in  Truth.     I 

have  no  greater"  joy  than  this,  that  I  hear  of  my  children  walking  in  the  Truth.'* 


1  Renan,  in  Con  temp.  Rev.  Sept.  1877. 

2  Hymenaeus,  Alexander  (i  Tim.  i.  20).  Philetus  (2  Tim.  ii.  17),  Hermogencs,  and  Phy- 
gellus  (2  Tim.  i.  iS)  are  similarly  mentioned  as  opponents  of  St.  Paul. 

3  T  John  iii.  18  ;  2  John  i.     To  love  "  in  Truth,"  is  the  same  as  to  love  "  in  the  Lord." 
''.Not  "  above  all  things,"  as  in  E.  V.     That  meaning  of  Trepl  navrtov  is  only  found  in  clas- 
sical poetry. 

5  evoSovaOai  (Rom.  i.  10:  i  Cor.  xii.  2)  :  literally,  to  be  "guided  on  a  journey."  Philo 
uses  the  word  as  here,  both  of  body  and  fouI,  Quis.  Rer.  Div.  Haer.  §  58. 

"  iiyiaiVetv  was  not  among  Christians  as  it  was  among  Stoics,  a  common  form  of  address. 
Hence  we  must  assume  that  Gaius  suftered  from  ill-health. 

^  I'lie  doubled  comparative  ixet^orepai'  may  be  intentionally  emphatic,  like  e\a\iaT6Tepo^, 
in  Eph.  iii.  8,  "Est  ad  intendendam  significationem  coniparativus  e  comparativo  factus" 
(Grotius). 

s  Lva.  St.  John's  use  of  IVa  is  far  wider  than  that  of  classical  writers.  It  often  loses  its 
Mic  sense  ("in  order  that"),  and  becomes  simply  ekbatic,  or  explanatory,  as  in  Luke  i.  43, 
John  XV.  13. 


e-je 


THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


"  Beloved  thou  playest  a  faithful  part  in  all  thy  work  towards  the  brethren, 
and  even  to  strangers, »  who  bear  witness  to  thy  love  before  the  Church,  whom 
bv  forwarding  on  their  journey  ^  worthily  of  Gods  thou  wilt  do  well.  For  on 
the  Name's  behalf*  they  went  forth,  accepting  nothing  from  the  Gentiles.s  We 
then  ought  to  support  such,  that  we  may  become   fellow-workers  with  the 

Truth  ' 

"l" wrote  somewhat  to  the  Church, ^  but  their  domineering  Diotrephes  re- 
ccivcth  us  not.«  On  this  account,  if  I  come,  I  will  bring  to  mind »  his  deeds 
which  he  doeth,  with  wicked  words  battling  against  us  ;  i"  and  not  content  with 
that,  he  neither  himself  receives  the  brethren,  and  he  hinders  those  who  wish  to 
do  so,  and  expels  them  from  the  Church. " 

'•  Beloved,  do  not  imitate  the  evil  but  the  good.'^  He  that  doeth  good  is 
from  God  •  he  that  doeth  evil  hath  not  seen  God.i^  Witness  has  been  borne  to 
Demetrius  by  all,i^  and  by  the  Truth  itself;  aye,  and  we  too  is  bear  witness,  and 
thou  knowest  that  our  witness  is  true.  16 

•'  I  had  many  things  to  write  to  thee,  but  I  do  not  wish  by  ink  and  reedi'  to 
write  to  thee,  but  I  hope  immediately  to  see  thee,  and  we  will  speak  mouth  to 
mouth.  Peace  to  thee.is  The  friends  salute  thee.  Salute  the  friends  by 
name."  i" 

''Salute  the  friends  byname:'     Salute  each  of  our  Chris- 
tian friends  as  warmly  and  as  individually  as  though  I  had 

1  #cai  TovTO.  X,  A,  B,  C.    The  hospitality  of  Gaius  was  not  only  ^iAa56X(^ia,  but  ^iXofej/io. 

'  7rpo7re7x.»/>as.     Tit.  iii.  13.  ^ 

3  af (.UJ5  ToO  ©eoO.  That  is,  giving  them  the  7naximuin  of  help,  as  their  sacred  cause  de- 
serves.    (Comp.  I  Thess.  ii.  12  ;  Col.  i.  10.) 

••  Acts  V.  41:  i.\.  16,  etc.  ;  Phil.  ii.  9.  "I  have  been  bound  in  the  Name"  (Ignat.  ad 
Ef-hes.  3).  "  Some  are  wont  with  evil  guile  to  carry  about  the  Name,  while  they  are  doing 
deeds  unworthy  of  God"  {id.  ib.  7).  Similarly  Christians,  among  themselves,  spoke  of 
Christianitj'  as  "  the  way"  (Acts  ix.  2  ;  xix.  9). 

'  St.  Paul's  rule  (i  Thess.  ii.  9  ;  i  Cor.  ix.  18  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  7  ;  xii.  16).  Gentiles  must  of 
course  mean  '•CJendle  converts."  Thev  could  not  expect  the  heathens  to  support  them. 
This  is  perhaps  implied  by  the  adjective  eOfLKoiv,  ^,  A,  B,  C. 

*  Comp.  I  'Ihess.  iii.  2  ;  Col.  iv.  11. 

'  F.vidently  a  br/ei/letter,  from  the  expression  Ti,  X.  A,  B,  C  (Luke  vii.  40  ;  Acts  xxiii-  18). 
It  is  now  lost,  like  many  other  of  these  minor  communications  (i  Cor.  v.  9).  Diotiephes 
seems  to  have  suppressed  this  letter,  whatever  it  was.  If  he  could  behave  so  outrageously  as 
he  is  said  to  do  m  the  next  clause,  he  would  have  thought  but  litde  of  making  away  with  a 
brief  letter. 

*  That  is,  "  rejects  my  authority."  Perhaps  it  means  that  this  turbulen  tintriguer  refused 
to  acknowledge  St.  John's  '"commendatory  letter." 

»  John  xiv.  26.  St.  John  means  that  he  will  draw  the  attention  of  the  Church  to  the  pro- 
ccedme;s  of  I  >i<)trephes. 

1"  <i>Auapol  (i  Tim.  v.  13);  <^Avapeti/,  the  French  deblaterer.  "Apposite,  calumnias  Dio- 
trcphis  ywzMf^arritutn"  (Corn,  k  Lapide). 

"  These  proce(fdings  seem  so  very  high-handed,  that  we  might  take  the  words  to  mean 
merely  that  he  excluded  them  from  the  congregation  which  possibly  met  at  his  house  ;  or  we 
might  suppose  the  meanings  of  the  presents  to  be  "  tries  to  hinder  them,  and  ':vantx  to  ex- 
ctimnnmicate  them."  Certainly  the  present  often  implies  the  unsuccessfnl  conatus  ret  fierji- 
cienditf  (sec  my  lirief  Creek  Syntax,  %  136)  ;  but  we  know  too  little  of  Diotrephes,  and  of 
the  Church  in  which  he  had  so  much  influence,  to  be  able  to  say  that  he  might  not  have  ac- 
tually excommunicated  (as  unauthorised  interlopers  into  his  parish — schismatic  intruders  on 
his  ovn  authority)  those  who  gave  ho.spitality  to  ICvangelists  or  who  brought  "  letters  of  com- 
mendation" from  St.  John.  If  he  was  capable  of,  prating  against  St.  John,  he  might  "have 
been  capable  of  this  also. 

"  Hob.  xiii.  7  ;   i  Pet.  iii.  13.     rb  Kax.hv  in  Diotrephe  ;  to  kyaSov  in  Demetrio"  (Bengel). 

'=•  I  John  iii.  6-10  :  iv.  8. 

><  "  1  )cnietrius  was  possibly  the  bearer  of  the  letter"  (Liicke). 

>•'  >col  ;,^€<9  hi  (i  John  iii.  6).  18  John  v.  32  ;  x.xi.  24. 

''  'I'hc  >caAafio? is  a  split  reed.  Si.  John  .seems  to  have  disliked  the  phvsical  toil  of  wridng, 
lo  which  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  had  not  been  accustomed.  He  probably  dictated  his 
longer  and  more  important  works. 

'"  John  xix.  28.  "The  inward  peace  of  conscience,  the  fraternal  peace  of  friendship,  the 
heavenly  peace  of  glory"  (T.yra). 

'»  Ihe  allusion  is  to  personal  private  friends,  not  the  brcdircn  in  general. 


THE   THIRD    EPISTLE   OF   ST.    JOHN.  G-JJ 

here  written  down  their  names.  So  fitly  ends  the  last  of  the 
writings  of  St.  John.  The  close  of  his  messages  to  the  Church 
of  (iod  is  as  calm  and  gentle  as  the  close  of  his  life.  God 
cares  for  individuals,  and  therefore  the  Church  of  God  cares 
for  them  also.  They  may  be  obscure,  humble,  faulty;  but  if 
they  be  true  disciples  they  need  fear  nothing  which  the  world 
can  threaten,  and  desire  nothing  which  it  can  offer,  for  "their 
names  are  written  in  the  Book  of  Life."  The  aged  Apostle 
speaks  of  them  as  "friends."  The  name,  as  applied  to  Chris- 
tians, is  peculiar  to  him,  for  Christians  regarded  each  other 
as  "brethren,"  and  therefore  as  bound  together  by  a  tie  even 
closer  than  that  of  friendship.  But  if  he  uses  this  word  as 
well  as  "brethren"  and  "beloved,"  it  doubtless  is  from  the 
remembrance  of  what  he  alone  among  the  Evangelists  has 
recorded,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  had  called  Lazarus  "His  friend," 
and  that  He  had  said,  "Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  the  things 
which  I  command  you.  No  longer  do  I  call  you  servants,  for 
the  servant  knoweth  not  what  his  Lord  doeth;  but  I  have 
called  you  friends,  for  all  things  that  I  have  heard  from  my 
Father  I  have  made  known  unto  you." 

He  ends,  therefore,  fitly  with  this  kind  message  to  individ- 
ual friends.  And  after  this  we  know  nothing  more  with  cer- 
tainty respecting  him.  He  was  not  taken  to  Heaven  in  the 
fiery  chariot  of  glory  or  of  martyrdom,  but  in  all  probability 
he  died  at  Ephesus,  in  a  peaceful  and  honoured  age,  among 
many  friends  who  deeply  loved  and  greatly  honoured  him. 
And  the  last  murmur  of  tradition  which  reaches  us  respecting 
him  is  that  which  tells  us  of  his  last  exhortation.  When  he 
was  no  longer  a  "Son  of  Thunder,"  no  longer  even  an  "Eagle 
of  Christ" — when  he  was  a  weak  and  worn  old  man,  with 
scarcely  anything  left  him  but  a  feeble  voice  and  trembling 
hands,  he  still  uplifted  those  trembling  hands  to  bless,  and 
still  strove  to  sum  up  all  that  he  had  taught,  in  words  easy  to 
utter,  but  of  which,  after  so  many  centuries,  we  have  yet  so 
imperfectly  learnt  the  meaning — 

"  Filioli,  diligite  alterutrum." 

"  Little  children,  love  one  another." 

And  this  he  did,  as  he  himself  explained,  "because  §uch 
was  the  Lord's  command;  and  if  this  only  be  done,  it  is 
enough." 


APPENDIX. 


EXCURSUS    I. 

THE    ASSERTED    PRIMACY    OF    ST.    PETER. 

That  St.  Peter  was  a  leading  Apostle — in  some  respects  the 
leading  Apostle — none  will  dispute;  but  that  he  never  exer- 
cised the  supremacy  which  is  assigned  to  him  by  Roman  Cath- 
olic writers  is  demonstrable  even  from  the  New  Testament. 
Anyone  who  will  examine  the  list  of  twenty-eight  Petrine 
prerogatives  detailed  by  Baronius'  will  see  in  their  extreme 
futility  the  best  disproof  of  the  claims  of  Roman  primacy. 
St.  Peter  had,  as  Cave  says,  a  primacy  of  order,  but  not  a  su- 
premacy of  power.  Such  a  supremacy  our  Lord  emphatically 
discountenanced.'  In  his  Epistle  St.  Peter  does  not  assume 
the  title  of  Apostle,  but  only  calls  himself  a  fellow-presbyter, 
and  rebukes  all  attempts  "to  play  the  lord  over  the  heritage 
of  God."  The  other  Apostles  send  him  to  Samaria.  The 
Church  at  Jerusalem  indignantly  calls  him  to  account  for  the 
bold  step  which  he  had  taken  in  the  case  of  Cornelius.  Paul, 
at  Antioch,  withstands  him  to  the  face,  and  claims  to  be  no 
whit  inferior  to  the  very  chiefest  Apostle,  assuming  the  Apos- 
tolate  of  the  Uncircumcision — that  is,  of  the  whole  Gentile 
world— as  predominantly  his  own.  St.  Peter  was  not  specially 
"the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved;"  and  though  he  received 
from  his  Lord  some  of  the  highest  eulogiums,  he  also  incurred 
the  severest  rebukes.  Even  when  we  turn  to  the  Fathers,  we 
find  St.  Cyprian  saying  that  "the  rest  of  the  Apostles  were 
that  which  Peter  was;  endowed  with  equal  participation  both 
of  honour  and  of  power."^  The  Presbvter  Hesvchius  calls, 
not  St.  Peter,  but  St.  James,  "the  prince  of  priests,  the  leader 
of  the  Apostles,  the  crown  among  the  heads,  the  brightest 
among  the  stars."*     He  calls  St.  Andrew  "the  Peter  before 


1  ?/  ^'"^;  ^""Z'^,  '•  '7'  ^^tQ-  2  Matt.  XX.  25-27  ;  Luke  xxii.  24-26. 

•  /V  Unttnt.  Ecclfs.  p.  180,  ^     /  •  •» 

*  .//.  Phot.  Co,i.  275.      lUr^o-.  in^nyopd  aXX'  'liKwpos  votxo0eT€l. 


ArPENDIX.  679 

Peter."  St.  Cyril  says  that  Peter  and  John  had  equivalent 
honour.  The  Promise  of  the  Keys  was  given  to  all  the  Apos- 
tles alike;'  and  in  the  Apocalypse  no  distinction  is  made  be- 
tween Kephas  and  the  rest  of  the  Twelve.^  Origen  says  that 
all  who  make  Peter's  confession  with  Peter's  faithfulness  shall 
have  Peter's  blessing.^  He  was  eminent  among  the  Apos- 
tles;— silpreuie  he  never  was.'' 


EXCURSUS    II, 

PATRISTIC    EVIDENCE    ON    ST.    PETER's    VISIT    TO    ROME. 

St.  Clemens  of  Rome  (f  10 1)  says  that  "he  bore  witness,'* 
using  the  term  which  implies  his  martyrdom;*  but  he  does  not 
say  that  this  took  place  at  Rome.  Ignatius  (f  114)/  and 
Papias^  (referred  to  by  Eusebius,  (f  340),  use  language  which 
may  be  inferentially  pressed  into  the  implication  that  he  had 
been  at  Rome.  St.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  (f  2-20),  who  tells 
the  story  about  St.  Peter's  wife,  does  not  mention  Rome.®  St. 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  (f  165),  says  that  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul 
both  taught  in  Italy ;^  but  the  weight  of  even  this  slight  allu- 
sion is  neutralised  by  its  being  found  in  the  same  sentence 
with  the  erroneous  suggestion  that  Peter  had  a  share  in  the 
founding  ((^uretaj/)  of  the  Church  of  Corinth.  St.  Irenseus  (f 
202)  makes  the  dubious  statement,  that  both  Apostles  took 
part  in  the  appointment  of  Linus  to  be  Bishop  of  Rome.'" 
Gaius  (f  200),  as  quoted  by  Eusebius,  says  that  the  "trophies" 
of  the  Apostles  were  shown  at  Rome  in  his  days.''  Tertul- 
lian  (t  218)  makes  a  similar  remark  in  a  passage  where  he  also 
accepts  the  legend  of  St.  John's  escape  from  death  when  he 
was  plunged  into  a  caldron  of  boiling  oil  at  the  Latin  gate.'^ 
Lastly,  Origen  (f  254)  is  the  first  who  says  that  Peter  was 
"crucified  head  downwards;'"'  and  St.  Ambrose — orapseudo- 
Ambrose — tells  the  story  of  the  Vision  on  the  Appian  road. 
Later  allusions  to  the  Apostle's  connexion  with  Rome,  which 


*  Matt,  xviii.  17,  18  ;  John  xx.  21-23.  ^  Rgy.  xxi.  14.  8  Xn  Matt.  xvi. 

*  See  the  question  examined  in  Shepherd's  Hist.  0/  the  Ck.  0/ Rome,  pp.  494.^. 
5  lip.  ad  Cor.  v. 

*  Ignat.  Rj>.  ad  Rotn.  iv.  oi^  w?  nfrpo?  kou  IlavAo?  ficaTO(r<ro/aoi  ViiXv. 

^  Papias  af>.  Euscb.  H.  E.  iii.  ad  Jin.     But  the  inference  is  of  the  remotest  kind.     It  sup- 
poses that  St.  Peter  needed  Mark  as  his  "interpreter"  in  Latin. 

^  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  //,  fi.  vi.  *  Dion,  ap,  Euseb.  //.  E.  ii.  25. 

*"  Iren.  c.  Haer.  iii.  i  and  3.  and  ap.  Euscb.  //.  E.  v.  6. 

*'  Gaius,  ap.  Euseb,  U.  E.  ii.  25. 

l^T^'^- de  Prasic  Haer.  ■p,  7,6.^    ?,ccioo  Scor/>iace,  i'^. 

J^  OriS'  '^A  Eu.seb.  H.  E.  iii.  i  ;  ave<yKokoiTi<T(i-t)  Kara  Ke(f>a\fi<:  oiiTws  avTb<:  aftwera^  naOelv. 


68o  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

grow  more  definite  as  time  advances,  are  found  in  Arnobius,' 
in  Lactantius,^  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions^'^  and  in  the 
pseudo-Clementine  Homilies. "* 

St  Peter's  visit  to  Rome  is  of  course  testified  by  multitudes 
of  later  writers;  but  their  assertions  have  no  independent  or 
evidential  value." 


EXCURSUS    III. 

USE    OF    THE    NAME    BABYLON    FOR    ROME    IN     I    PET.     V,     I3. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  St.  Peter  could  not  be  writing 
from  the  real  Babylon,  because  that  city  was  at  this  period 
ruined  and  deserted.  Strabo  and  Pausanias  say  that  it  was  a 
mere  ruin;  Pliny  calls  it  a  solitude.^  But,  although  we  learn  from 
Josephus  that  the  Jev/s  in  the  city  had  terribly  suffered,  first 
by  a  persecution  in  the  reign  of  Caligula,  and  then  by  a  plague,^ 
we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  many  of  them  may  not  have 
returned  during  the  twenty  years  which  had  sulDsequently 
elapsed.  Again,  it  is  not  proved  that  St.  Peter  may  not  have 
used  the  word  "Babylon"  to  describe  the  country  or  district^ 
as  is  done  by  Philo,"  so  that  he  may  have  actually  written  from 
Seleucia  or  Ctesiphon,  in  which  cities  the  Jews  were  numer- 
ous;'' or  even  from  Nehardea  or  Nisibis,  in  which  they  had 
taken  refuge.'"  Parthians,  Medes,  Elamites,  and  dwellers  in 
Mesopotamia,  had  been  among  his  hearers  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  there  is  nothing  ijitrinsically  improbable  in  the 
notion  of  his  having  gone  to  visit  these  crowded  communities 
of  the  Dispersion.    They  were  so  numerous  and  so  important, 

>  Arnob.  c.  Cent.  il.  12.  2  T.actant.  ih  Mart.  Per  sec.  il. 

!  ^S!*^^'  Af'"^^-  '^■''•.  45-  *  Ps.-CIem.  Horn.    A>.  ad  Jac.  i. 

•  I  he  denial,  that  St.  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome,  by  the  Waldenses,  Marsihus  of  Padua, 
Salmasius,  etc.,  was  elaborately  supported  by  Fr.  Spannheim  [De  Jicta  firofectiofic,  etc., 
1679)  De  Wettc,  I'.aur.  Winer,  Holtzmann,  and  Schweglcr  are  led  to  a  similar  view  by  their 
l-cliL-f  in  the  virulent  jealousies  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Chri.,tians.  and  Neander  was 
shaken  bv  the  arcuments  of  Baur.  But  the  mass  of  learned  Protestants,  Scaliger,  Casaubon, 
irr""r  1  *^'''  '''■^■"*'^"'  t'earson.  Cave,  Schrockh,  Gieselcr,  Blcek,  Olshausen.  Wieseler, 
Hilgeiifeld.  etc..  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  admit  his  martyrdom  or  residence  at  Rome.  To 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  Papal  claims  is  here  wholly  beyond  my  scope.  If  the  reader 
has  any  doubt  on  the  subject,  he  may  read  with  advantage  the  articleson  the  "  Petrine  Claims." 
in  the  Lhurch  Quarterly  Review  f..r  April,  1878,  April.  1879,  and  January,  1S80,  and  he  will 
find  some  brief  hints  on  the  subject  in  Dr.  I.itlledale's  Plain  Reasons.  He  will  find  all  that 
can  be  ur^cd  on  the  other  side  in  Mr.  Allnatt's  Cathedra  PetrtMxd  Father  Ryder's  Catholic 
Lontrcniersy. 

•  See  Is.  xiii.  ;  xiv.  4,  12  :  xlvi.,  etc.  That  the  Babylon  alluded  to  is  the  obscure  Egyptian 
tort  of  that  name  (Strabo,  xvu.  1,  p.  807)— a  pLice  utterly  unknown  to  Christian  history  and 
tradition— IS  a  conjecture  which  may  be  set  aside  without  further  notice.  No  human  being  in 
the  Asiatic  Lhurche.s  to  which  St.  Peter  was  writing  could  ever  have  heard  of  such  a  place. 

^  Jo*.  Autt.  xviu.  9,  §  8.  8  phiio,  Leg.  ad  Gaium,  36. 

Jos.  Autt.  XV.  3,  I.  10  Jos.  jif^tt.  xviii.  9,  §  9. 


APPENDIX.  68l 

that  Josephus  originally  wrote  his  History  of  the  Jewish  War 
for  their  benefit,  and  wrote  it  in  Aramaic,  without  any  doubt 
that  it  would  find  countless  readers. 

It  has  been  argued  that  the  geographical  order  observable 
in  the  names  "Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithy- 
nia" — the  Churches  to  which  his  Epistle  is  addressed — is  more 
natural  to  one  writing  from  Babylon  than,  to  one  who  was 
writing  from  Rome;  but  this  is  an  argument  which  will  not 
stand  a  moment's  consideration. 

On  the  other  hand,  against  the  literal  acceptance  of  the 
word  "Babylon"  there  are  four  powerful  arguments,  (i). 
There  is  not  the  faintest  tradition  in  those  regions  of  any  visit 
from  St.  Peter.  (2).  If  St.  Peter  was  in  Babylon  at  the  time 
when  his  Epistle  was  written,  there  is  great  difficulty  in  ac- 
counting for  his  familiarity  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
which  was  not  written  till  a.d.  62,.  (3).  It  becomes  difficult 
to  imagine  circumstances  which  could  have  brought  him  from 
the  far  East  into  the  very  crisis  of  the  Neronian  persecution 
in  the  Babylon  of  the  West.  (4).  If  "Marcus''  be  the  Evan- 
gelist, he  was  with  St.  Paul  between  a.d.  61 — (>t,^^  and  probably 
rejoined  him  just  before  his  martyrdom  in  a.d.  68.^  We  should 
not,  therefore,  expect  to  find  him  so  far  away  as  Babylon  in 
A.D.  67. 

I  strongly  incline  to  the  belief  that  by  Babylon  the  Apostle 
intended  to  indicate  Rome,^  and  we  find  this  interpretation 
current  in  the  Church  in  very  early  days.''  The  Apocalypse 
was  written  about  the  same  time  as — or  not  long  after — the 
First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter;  and  in  the  Apocalypse''  and  in  the 
Sibylline  Verses®  we  see  that  a  Western,  and  even  an  Asiatic, 
Christian,  when  he  heard  the  name  "Babylon"  in  a  religious 
writing,  would  be  likely  at  once  to  think  of  Rome.  Through- 
out the  Talmud  we  find  the  same  practice  of  applying  sym- 
bolic names.  There  Rome  figures  under  the  designations  of 
Nineveh,  Edom,  and  Babylon,  and  almost  every  allusion  to 
Christ,  even  in  the  unexpurgated  passages  of  the  Amsterdam 
edition,  is  veiled  under  the  names  of  "Absalom,"  "That  man," 
"So-and-so,"  and  "The  Hung."  The  reference  to  Rome  as 
Babylon  may  have  originated  in  a  mystic  application  of  the 


1  Col.  iv.  10  ;  Philem.  24.  2  2  Tim.  iv.  11. 

3  So  the  Fathers  unanimously  ;  and  Grotius,  Lardner,  Cave,  Semlor,  Hitzig.  and  the 
Tiilnngen  school  :  as  against  De  Wette  and  Wieseler.  See  too  I>ipsius,  Chfon.  der  ]\'dtn. 
Bisch.  (1869)  :  Hilgenfeld,  Fetrus  in  Rom.  {Zeitschr.  /.  luoss.  Theol.  1872)  ;  Zeller,  Zuf 
Petrusjfrage  {ib.  1876). 

*  Papias  nf>.  Euseb.  //.  E.  ii.  15,  iii.  25  :  Iron.  c.  Ilacr.  iii.  i,  etc. 

^  Rev.  .xiv,  8  ;  xvi.  19  ;  xvii.  9,  18  ;  xviii.  2,  etc.  "  Sibyll.  v.  143,  159. 


682  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Old  Testament  prophecies,  but  it  had  its  advantage  afterwards 
as  a  secret  symbol.  It  is  therefore  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
the  use  o(  Babylon  for  Rome  would  be  the  sudden  obtrusion  of 
"allegory"  into  matter-of-fact,  or  that  by  using  it  the  Apostle 
would  be  "going  out  of  his  way  to  make  an  enigma  for  all 
future  readers."  There  is,  in  fact,  a  marked  accordance  be- 
tween such  an  expression  and  the  conception  which  St.  Peter 
indicates  throughout  his  letter,  that  all  Christians  are  exiles 
scattered  from  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  living,  some  of  them, 
in  the  earthly  Babylon.'  An  early  Christian  would  have  seen 
nothing  either  allegorical  or  enigmatical  in  the  matter.  He 
would  at  once  have  understood  the  meaning,  and  have  known 
the  reasons,  alike  mystic  and  political,  for  avoiding  the  name 
of  Rome. 


EXCURSUS   IV. 

THE   BOOK   OF    ENOCH. 

The  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  by  St.  Jude,  and 
the  traces  which  it  contains  of  the  reciprocal  influences  of 
Jewish  and  Christian  speculation,  have  always  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  Church  to  that  singular  Apocalypse. 

From  the  end  of  the  i6th  century  till  recent  times  nothing 
was  known  of  it  except  by  the  quotations  in  the  Fathers  and 
the  Greek  fragments  preserved  in  the  Chronographia  of  Geor- 
gius  Syncellus,  and  the  Testament  of  the  2\velve  Patriaixhs. 
In  the  17th  century  it  became  known  that  the  entire  book  ex- 
isted in  an  Ethiopjc  translation.  Three  manuscripts  of  this 
translation  were  brought  to  England  by  Bruce,  the  Abyssinian 
explorer,  in  1773.  It  was  first  translated  into  English  by 
Archbishop  Lawrence  in  1821,  and  retranslated  into  German 
by  Hofmann  in  1833,  and  into  Latin  by  A.  F.  Gfrorer  in 
1840. 

It  consists  of  an  Introduction,  i. — vi.  12,  containing  a 
Prophecy  of  Judgment. 

vii. — X.  Legends  about  the  two  hundred  fallen  angels 
who  went  astray  with  the  daughters  of  men,  and  taught  man- 
kind the  Arts,  the  Sciences,  and  many  forms  of  luxury. 

xi. — xvi.     Enoch  is  sent  on  a  mission  to  these  fallen  angels. 

xvii. — xxxv.  Visions,  sometimes  (as  in  the  Apocalypse) 
in  Heaven  and  sometimes  on  earth,  in  which  Enoch  is  taught 


'  I  Pel.  i.  I,  7rapcjri8iJMoi5  ;  v.  13.  iv  Ba/BvAin.     Sec  Godet's  A^i-^w  Testament  Stu^iss, 


APPENDIX.  683 

the  origin  of  the  elements  and  the  general  elements  of  Natural 
Science,  and  is  shown  the  prison  of  the  fallen  angels,  and  the 
dwelling  of  the  good,  where  the  voice  of  the  murdered  Abel 
sounds. 

xxxvii. — Ixx.^  A  second  "Vision  of  Wisdom,"  which  (as 
in  the  Apocalypse)  repeats — though  with  many  variations — all 
the  essential  elements  contained  in  i. — xxxv.,  which  are  treated 
as  one  vision.  This  section  falls  into  three  Parables  or  Masch- 
als;  these  are  xxxviii. — xliv.,  chiefly  dwelling  on  the  future 
abode  and  condition  of  sinners;  xlv. — Iv.,  on  those  who  deny 
Heaven  and  God,  and  the  Messianic  Judgment  which  they 
incur;  Ivi. — Ixx.,  chiefly  on  the  blessings  of  the  elect. 

The  section  Ixxi. — Ixxxi.  is  entitled  the  Book  of  the  Lights 
of  Heaven.  Enoch,  orally  and  in  wTiting,  teaches  his  son  Me- 
thuselah about  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars. 

The  section  Ixxxii. — Ixxxix.  contains  two  dreams.  In  the 
first  Enoch  sees  the  vision  of  the  Flood,  and  prays  God  not 
to  destroy  all  mankind;  in  the  second  he  sees  an  apocalyptic 
foreshadowing  of  future  history  down  to  the  time  of  Herod 
the  Great  (?)  with  a  picture  of  the  days  of  the  Messiah. 

Chapters  xc,  xci.  contain  Enoch's  words  of  consolation 
and  exhortation  to  his  children. 

Chapter  xcii.  to  v.  18  is  a  sketch  of  history  in  ten  weeks 
or  periods,  of  which  the  first  is  signalised  by  the  birth  of 
Enoch;  the  second  by  the  Flood;  the  third  by  the  life  of 
Noah;  the  fourth  by  Moses;  the  fifth  by  the  building  of  Solo- 
mon's Temple;  the  sixth  by  Ezra;  the  seventh  by  the  encroach- 
ments of  heathenism;  the  eighth  by  rewards,  punishments, 
and  the  building  of  a  new  Temple;  the  ninth  by  the  Messianic 
kingdom;  the  tenth  by  the  judgment  of  men  and  angels,  and 
the  renovation  of  the  world. 

From  xcii.  19 — civ.  the  book  is  mainly  didactic,  being  full 
of  promises  and  threatenings.  In  the  last  chapter  (cv.)  Enoch 
relates  the  birth  of  Noah,  and  prophesies  that  he  shall  be  the 
founder  of  a  new  race. 

The  Ethiopic  text  is  undoubtedly  translated  from  the 
Greek,  of  which  we  find  fragments  in  St.  Jude,  in  Justin 
Martyr,  and  other  Fathers,  and  in  the  Testa??ient  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs."^  Whether  the  Greek  is  itself  a  translation  from 
an  original  Hebrew  book  is  uncertain.  Origen  seems  to  imply 
that  this  was  the  case,  for  he  says  that  the  Books  (libelli)  were 
not  regarded  as  authoritative  "among  the  Hebrews."     That 

^  Chapter  xxxvi.  is  missing.  ^  Qrig.  Horn.  28  ;  in  Num.  xxxiv. 


684  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  book  in  its  present  form  is  not  by  one  author,  and  that  the 
Tsoachian  parts  of  it  are  by  another  hand,  is  clear.  From  in- 
ternal evidence  it  appears  that  part  at  least  of  the  book  (chap- 
ters i. — XXXV.,  Ixxi. — cv.)  was  written  in  the  days  of  the  Mac- 
cabees; and  that  chapters  xxxvii. — Ixx.  are  not  earlier  than 
the  days  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  are  full  of  still  more  recent 
interpolations.  Volkmar  has  endeavoured  to  prove  that,  as  a 
whole,  it  is  not  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  and  that  it 
expresses  the  views  of  R.  Akiva.^ 

One  reason  for  the  slighting  estimate  of  the  book  by  the 
Jews  may  be  that  the  writer  shows  no  interest  in  the  ritual  and 
Ceremonial  Law,  and  makes  no  special  mention  either  of  cir- 
cumcision or  of  the  Sabbath. 


EXCURSUS   V. 

RABBINIC    ALLUSIONS    IN    ST.    JUDE. 

The  direct  citation  of  St.  Jude  (verses  14,  15)  from  the 
Book  of  Enoch  is  taken  from  the  second  chapter,  but  it  is  by 
no  means  the  only  trace  of  a  similarity  between  the  two  wTiters. 

i.  Jude  6  dwells  on  the  fall  of  the  angels  wiiich  "kept  not 
their  own  dominion,"  but  "left  their  own  habitation,  and  are 
reserved  in  everlasting  bonds  under  darkness  unto  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Great  Day"  (comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  5).  This,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  a  topic  which  occupies  a  large  part  of  the  Book 
of  Enoch.  In  vii.  2  we  are  told  of  two  hundred  angels  who 
descended  on  Ardis,  the  top  of  Mount  Armon.  In  xii.  5 — 7, 
we  are  told  that  they  ''have  deserted  the  lofty  sky  and  their 
holy  everlasting  habitation,  .  .  .  and  have  been  greatly 
corrupted  on  the  earth,"  and  in  xiv.  4,  that  they  are  "to  be 
bound  on  earth  as  /ang  as  the  world  endures^''  and  (xvi.  5)  that 
they  are  "never  to  obtain  peace."  Their  prison-house,  where 
they  are  to  be  "kept  for  ever"  (xxi.  6),  is  "a  terrific  place," 
and  theyare  "confined  in  a  network  of  iron  and  brass"  (liv. 
6),  which  nevertheless  consists  of  "fetters  of  iron  without 
weight."  The  last  expression  is  an  antiphrasis  like  the  "clank- 
less  chains"  of  Shelley,  and  the  "fetters,  yet  not  of  brass," 
of  yKschylus.  The  author  of  the  Second  Epistle'of  Peter,  with 
lyric  boldness,  speaks  of  these  fetters  as  "chains  of  dark- 


'  for  further  information,  sec  Abp.  Lawrence's  Prelim.  Dissert,  and  Tratislation  (1821)  ; 
Jlofmann,  Da^  Buck  Henoch  (1833) ;  ami  in  Krsch  and  (iriiber,  EncycL  s.  v.  ;  Liicke,  Ein- 
Int.  t„  d.  OfffMb.  i.  89-144  :  Cfriircr,  Jahrh.  d.  Heils,  i.  93  /p.  ;  and  especially  A.  Dill- 
nianii,  /),is  /Jut/i  Henoch  (1853). 


APPENDIX.  685 

ness,"  and  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (xvii.  2,  16, 
17)  evidently  had  a  similar  picture  in  his  mind  when  he  speaks 
of  the  Egyptians  as  "fettered  with  the  bonds  of  a  long  night," 
"shut  up  in  a  prison  without  iron  bars,"  and  "bound  with 
one  chain  of  darkness."  These  fallen  angels  are  shut  up  in  a 
"burning  valley,"  and  yet  its  fires  give  no  light,  or  only 
"teach  light  to  counterfeit  a  gloom,"  for  they  are  "covered 
with  darkness,"  and  they  "see  no  light"  (Enoch  x.  i — 9). 

ii.  Again,  in  v.  13  St.  Jude  compares  the  corrupted  Anti- 
nomians  whom  he  is  denouncing  as  "wandering  stars  to  whom 
is  reserved  the  blackness  of  darkness  for  ever."  We  might 
have  supposed  that  the  metaphor  was  derived  from  meteors 
disappearing  into  the  night,  or  comets  rushing  off  into  the 
illimitable  void.  But  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  (xviii.  14,  16) 
we  are  led  to  infer  that,  by  the  "wandering  stars"  are  meant 
quite  \itev3.\\y  fla/ie^s  {aa-ripe';  TrXavrJTaL),  not,  as  Bengel  sup- 
posed, because  they  are  opaque,  but  because  they  are  regarded 
(with  the  sun  and  moon)  as  "seven  stars  ....  which 
transgressed  the  commandment  of  God  .  .  .  /or  they 
came  not  in  their  proper  season.''  What  was  the  exact  concep- 
tion in  the  writer's  mind  is  impossible  to  say,  but  he  may  have 
identified  the  planets  with  evil  spirits  because  they  were  ob- 
jects of  idolatrous  worship,  and  were  named  after  heathen 
deities.^ 

iii.  Once  more,  in  v.  7  St.  Jude  seems  distinctly  to  imply 
that  the  sin  of  the  Fallen  Angels  was  analogous  to  that  of  the 
cities  of  the  Plain,  in  that  they,  by  unions  with  mortal  women, 
went  after  strange  flesh.  This  is  exactly  the  view  of  the 
pseudo-Enoch.  He  makes  Enoch  reproach  them  (xv.  i — 7), 
because  being  by  nature  spiritual,  th^y''  have  done  as  those  who 
are  flesh  and  blood  do,''  and  have  thereby  transgressed  the 
very  law  of  their  nature. 

iv.  Nor  are  these  the  only  references  to  Rabbinic  and  other 
legends  by  St.  Jude.  In  verse  5  it  is  said  that  "Jesus"  led 
the  people  out  of  Egypt,  and  in  the  second  instance  destroyed 
them.  The  use  of  the  name  "Jesus"  for  "Christ"  shows  per- 
haps the  somewhat  late  date  of  the  Epistle.  When  St.  Paul 
alludes  to  the  legendary  wanderings  of  the  Rock  in  the  desert 
(i  Cor.  x.  4),  he  adds  the  allegory  "and  that  Rock  was  Christ." 
In  saying  that  "Jesus"  saved  the  people  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  St.  Jude  seems  to  be  identifying  Him  with  the  Pillar 


1  For  two  remarkable  parallels  between  the  Houk  of  Enoch  and  the  Apocalypse,  see  the 
Notes  on  Rev.  vi.  lo,  ii,  and  xiv.  20. 


686  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

of  Fire,  which  is  one  of  the  many  divine  manifestations  to 
which  Philo  compares  the  Logos.' 

V.  The  strange  reference  to  a  dispute  betwen  Michael  and 
Satan  about  the  body  of  Moses  has  not  yet  been  traced  to  any 
source  whatever.  Origen  says  that  it  was  taken  from  an  Apo- 
cryphal book  called  llic  Assumption  of  Moses j  and  CEcume- 
ni'us  says  that  Satan  claimed  the  body  of  Moses  because  he 
had  killed  the  Egyptian.  The  words  '  'The  Lord  rebuke  thee, ' ' 
are  addressed  to  Satan  by  the  Lord  (who  is  perhaps  meant  to 
be  the  same  as  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  in  the  previous  verse), 
in  Zech.  iii.  2.  The  nearest  approach  to  this  legend  is  in  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan  on  Deut.  xxxiv.  6,  where  we  are  told, 
with  obvious  reference  to  some  similar  story,  that  the  grave 
of  Moses  was  entrusted  to  the  charge  of  Michael. 

vi.  Again,  when  it  is  said  that  these  false  and  polluted 
Christians  "went  in  the  way  of  Cain,"  the  reference  cannot 
be  to  anything  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  There  the 
only  crime  laid  to  the  charge  of  Cain  is  murder.  The  refer- 
ence here  seems  to  be  mainly  to  presumption  and  blasphemy, 
and  to  that  insolent  atheism  with  which  Cain  is  charged  in 
the  Jerusalem  Targum  on  Gen.  iv.  7,  where  he  is  made  to 
deny  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  Judge  or  a  judgment.  The 
allusion  cannot  be  to  the  blaspheming  Gnostics  who  called 
themselves  Cainites,  for  we  do  not  hear  of  them  till  much 
later. ^  It  is,  however,  remarkable  that  they  chose  Cain,  the 
Sodomites,  and  Korah  (who  are  all  here  mentioned),  as  their 
heroes,  and  as  the  represehtatives  of  the  stronger  and  better 
spiritual  powers,  who  were  opposed  to  the  Demiurge  of  the 
Mosaic  Dispensation  and  the  material  world. 


EXCURSUS   VL 

SPECIMENS    OE    PHILONIAN    ALLEGORY. 

I.  Commenting  on  Gen.  xvii.  16,  "/  will  give  thee  a  son 
from  her,''  and  explaining  it  of  the  joy  of  heart  which  God 
promises  to  the  virtuous,  Philo  adds  that  some  explain  ''fro7n 
her' '  to  mean  *  'apart  from  her, ' '  because  Virtue  does  not  spring 
from  the  .soul,  but  from  without,  even  from  God.  Others  ex- 
plain the  Greek  words  as  though  they  were  a  single  word 
{exautes),  meaning  '"imtnediately,''  because  all  divine  gifts  are 
speedy  and  spontaneous.     Others,  again,  make  "from  her" 

•  Quii  Rer.  Div.  Haer.,  and  De  Vit.  Mos.  2. 
«  Ircii.  c.  Haer.  i.  31  ;  Epiphan.  Hacr.  38. 


APPENDIX.  687 

mean  ''from  Virtue^''  which  is  the  mother  of  all  good.^  The 
simultaneous  existence  of  three  such  strange  devices  of  exe- 
gesis at  least  shows  that  Philo  might  take  his  premises  for 
granted  among  the  readers  whom  alone  he  wished  to  address. 

2.  On  Gen.  xv.  15  he  says  that  in  ''Thou  sJiali  go  to  thy 
fathers''  some  understood  by  "fathers,"  not  "thy  Chakl^ean 
forefathers,"  but  "the  sun,  moon,  and  stars;"  others  explained 
"father"  to  mean  "archetypal  ideas,  and  the  things  unseen;" 
others,  the  four  elements  and  powers  of  which  the  universe  is 
composed — earth,  air,  fire,  and  water!'^ 

3.  Each  of  the  Patriarchs  represents  a  condition  of  the 
soul.  Abraham  represents  acquired  virtue;  Isaac,  natural 
virtue;  Jacob,  virtue  acquired  by  training;  Joseph,  political 
virtue.  Sarah  represents  generic  virtue,  virtue  in  the  ab- 
stract; Rebecca  represents  endurance;  Leah  is  persecuted 
virtue;  Pharaoh  is  the  mind- set  against  God;  Moses  is  the 
prophetic  word.  Everything  and  every  person  stands  for 
something  else.  Egypt  represents  the  body;  Canaan  symbol- 
ises piety.  A  kingdom  is  an  emblem  of  Divine  wisdom;  a 
pigeon,  of  human  wisdom;  a  sheep,  of  the  pure  soul. 

4.  Writing  on  Gen.  xviii.  6,  he  idealises  the  appearance  of 
the  three  angels  into  the  fact  that  the  seeking  soul  recognises 
God,  His  love,  and  His  might.  The  three  measures  of  meal 
indicate  that  the  soul  must  embrace  and  treasure  up  this  three- 
fold manifestation  of  God.  The  word  for  cakes  \enkruphias) 
means  that  the  Sacred  word  about  God  and  His  power  must 
be  concealed  in  the  initiated  soul.^ 

5.  On  Gen.  xxxi.  i.  10,  "  With  my  staff  I  passed  over  this 
Jordauy''  he  says  it  woudl  be  a  poor  thing  (r«x€ivov)  to  under- 
stand it  literally.  Jordan  means  all  that  is  base,  the  staff 
means  discipline:  Jacob  intended  to  imply  that  by  discipline 
he  had  risen  above  baseness. 

Only  by  such  means  could  Philo  get  rid  of  the  representa- 
tion of  God  as  having  human  parts  and  human  passions.  But 
with  this  method  he  can  boldly  set  aside,  as  literally  false  and 
only  allegorically  true,  whatever  offends  his  philosophic  con- 
victions. Thus,  on  Gen.  ii.  21,  after  saying  that  the  letter  of 
the  narrative  is  mythical,  he  argues  that  otherwise  it  would 
be  absurd.     By  ''ribs''  are  meant  merely  the  powers  of  life,' 


^  De  710771171.  7/iuiai,  §  xxv.  (Mangpy.  i.  599). 

2  (,')uis  rcr.  div.  haer.  (IMang.  i.  513).     De  Migr.  A/>ruham.,  ad  intt. 

3  €yKpv(f>ia<:  means  "•  cakes  baked  by  being  hiddeti  in  ashes"  {De  Sacr.  Abel  et  Cain, 
Mang.  i.  173). 

*  Leg.  ailegg.i.  18  (Mang.  i.  70). 


688  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  the  notion  that  Eve  was  formed  out  of  a  material  rib  seems 
to  him  degrading. 

6.  He  often  accepts  the  general  fact,  but  allegorises  all  the 
details.  'The  tree  of  Paradise,  the  serpent,  and  the  expulsion, 
are  merely  symbols;  and  he  confidently  addresses  his  explan- 
ation of  them  to  "the  initiated."  The  heart  of  his  system  is 
seen  in  his  comments  on  "'Let  us  ?Jtake  ma7i  in  our  image.'' 
The  plural  shows,  he  says,  that  the  angels  as  well  as  God  had 
a  share  in  the  making  of  man,  and  since  man  is  of  mixed 
nature,  we  must  suppose  that  the  good  side  of  his  nature  came 
from  God,  the  weak  side  from  the  angels.  But  he  goes  on  to 
explain  that  the  verse  applies  to  the  creation  of  man  in  the 
idea,  not  in  the  concrete. 


EXCURSUS   VII. 


ADDITIONAL     ILLUSTRATIONS     OF    PHILO  S    VIEWS    ABOUT    THE 

LOGOS. 

In  God,  no  less  than  in  man,  Philo  distinguishes  between 
the  speech  and  the  reason.  The  Divine  reason  embraces  the 
whole  intelligible  world,  the  world  of  ideas,  what  he  some- 
times calls  "the  idea  of  ideas."  The  Divine -speech  includes 
the  whole  world  of  active  agents  and  Divine  forces. 

(i.)  Hence  it  is  that,  in  a  phrase  borrowed  by  Apollos 
(Heb.  iv.  12),  he  calls  the  Word  "the  cutter  of  all  things." 
The  phrase  is  founded  on  an  allegorical  explanation  of  Gen. 
XV.  9.  Philo  says  that  in  the  sacrifice  there  described  the 
she-goat  symbolises  the  sense,  the  calf  the  soul,  the  dove 
Divine  wisdom,  the  pigeon  human  wisdom.  The  wise  man 
sees  all  these  as  gifts  from  above.  The  text  says  that  ''he' 
divided  these  sacrifices,  and  since  the  name  of  Abraham  is 
not  repeated,  '"he"  must  mean  the  Logos,  and  the  truth  in- 
dicated is  that  the  Logos,  "whetted  to  sharpest  edge,"  divides 
all  perceptible  things  to  their  inmost  depths — the  soul  into 
the  reasonable  and  the  unreasonable;  speech  into  true  and 
false;  the  world  of  sense  into  distinct  and  indistinct  pheno- 
mena. These  divided  parts  are,  by  way  of  contrast,  placed 
opposite  to  each  other.  The  doves  alone  are  not  divided, 
becau.se  Divine  wisdom  is  simple,  and  cannot  be  cleft  into 
opposing  contrarieties. '  Thus  God,  whetting  His  Word,  which 
cutteth  all  things,  divides  the  formless  and  abstract  essence 


Quit.  rer.  div.  haer.  %  xlviii.  (Mang.  i.  491)  ;  sec  Gfrorcr,  Philo,  \.  184-1S7. 


APPENDIX.  689 

of  all  things,  and  the  four  elements  of  the  universe,  and  the 
animals  and  jilants  compounded  from  them.  Hence  the 
phrase  "the  cutter  W^ord,"  seems  to  be  based  on  the  distinc- 
tion between  t]ie  Logos  as  the  primeval  Idea,  and  the  Logos 
as  a  creative  Force. 

(ii.)  The  world  of  Ideas,  to  which  the  existing  world  cor- 
responds as  a  c©py  to  its  archetype,  lies  in  the  Divine  Logos. 
Philo  illustrates  this  by  saying  that,  when  God  bade  Moses 
to  lift  up  a  serpent  in  the  wilderness.  He  did  not  say  of  what 
metal  it  was  to  be  made,  because  the  ideas  of  God  are  abstract 
and  immaterial;  Moses,  in  carrying  out  the  concrete  realisa- 
tion, is  obliged  to  use  some  substance,  and  therefore  makes 
the  serpent  of  brass.'  Similarly  he  holds  that  God  is  not  to 
be  grasped  by  human  knowledge,  but  that  the  Word  is. 
Hence,  writing  on  Gen.  xxii.  16,  he  says,  "God  is  the  God  of 
wise  and  perfect  beings,  but  the  Logos  is  the  God  of  us  who 
are  imperfect." 

(iii.)  Philo  uses  so  many  analogies  to  express  his  notion  of 
the  Logos  that  he  falls  into  contradictions,  and  leaves  his 
readers  in  confusion.  The  Logos,  in  various  passages  of  his 
voluminous  writings,  is  the  creator  of  species,  although  He  is 
Himself  the  Idea  of  Ideas;  He  is  the  seal  of  God;  He  is  the 
Divine  force  which  dwells  in  the  universe;  He  is  the  chain  or 
band  which  keeps  the  world  together;  He  is  the  law  and 
ordinance  of  all  things;  He  is  the  giver  of  wisdom,  the  warden 
of  virtue;  He  is  the  manna  which  nourishes  the  soul;  He  is 
the  fatherland  of  wise  souls,  the  pilot  of  the  wise;  He  is  their 
controlling  conscience,  their  Paraclete;  He  is  the  Divine  wis- 
dom which  is  the  daughter  of  God.'' 


EXCURSUS    VIIL 


PATRISTIC    EVIDENCE    AS    TO    THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE 
EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS. 

The  canon icity  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrew^s,  its  right  to 
be  accepted  as  a  part  of  Holy  Scripture,  the  perfect  truthful- 
ness of  the  contemporary  character  which  it  assumes,  its  great- 
ness, importance,  and  authority,  and  the  fact  that  it  was  writ- 
ten before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  are  not  in  question.  These 
points  have  never  been  seriously  disputed.     Some  have  seen 


^  Leg.  alleg_^.  ii.  §  20  (Mang.  i.  80). 

-  See  various  passages  quoted  in  Cifrorer,  Philo,  i.  l^i 

44 


690  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

allusions  to  the  Epistle  in  St.  James  and  the  Second  of  St, 
Peter.'  Setting  these  aside  as  improbcible,  it  was  certainly 
known  to  St.  Clemens  of  Rome,  and  largely  used  by  him  in 
his  letter  to  the  Corinthians;"'  and  it  is  possible — though  no 
move — that  it  was  the  source  of  some  of  the  parallels  adduced 
from  the  writings  of  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin  Martyr,  and 
the  Pseudo-Barnabas.  But  in  the  Western  Clgurch  no  single 
writer  of  the  first,  second,  or  even  third  century  quoted  it  ^7^ 
5"/.  Paurs.  Not  only  did  Basilides  {cir.  a.d.  125)  exclude  it, 
though  he  acknowledged  the  other  Paulinic  Epistles,'  but  we 
are  expressly  told  that  St.  Hippolytus  (f  235?)  denied  that  it 
was  written  by  St.  Paul.  The  authority  for  this  fact  is  late 
and  heretical,*  yet  there  seems  no  reason  to  reject  so  positive 
a  statement.  And  this  remark  of  St.  Hippolytus,  together  with 
the  place  assigned  to  the  Epistle  in  the  Peshito,  indicates  the 
opinion  of  the  Syrian  Church  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, if,  as  seems  probable,  the  learned  and  eloquent  Bishop 
of  Portus  came  originally  from  Antioch.^  We  have  the  same 
assurance  about  St.  Irenaeus  (f  a.d.  202).  We  find  from 
Eusebius  that  in  a  work  attributed  to  Irenaeus  (but  which 
Eusebius  had  never  seen)^  he  quoted  from  the  Papistic  to  the 
Hebrews,  and/r^;;/  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.  But  no  such  quo- 
tation was  to  be  found  in  any  of  his  best-known  works,  and  in 
any  case  he  did  not  assign  the  Epistle  to  St.  Paul.'  Indeed,  the 
mention  of  the  Epistle  with  the  Wisdom  of  Solofnon  seems  to 
imply  that  he  regarded  the  two  works  as  standing  on  the  same 
footing.  The  Presbyter  Gains  only  recognised  thirteen  Epis- 
tles of  St.  Paul,  and'did  not  number  this  Epistle  among  them.' 
The  Canon  of  Muratori  {cir.  a.d.  170)  either  does  not  allude 

'  2  PeL  iii.  15,  16  :  Ja.  ii.  24,  25. 

'  'Ef  j5  t^9  Trpos  'E/3pai'ovs  iroAAa  vo^fxara  Trapaflecs  tjSt;  he  kox  avroXe^ei  pijTois  tktiv  ef 
auT^S  xpi7(Ta/xe»'0S  <Ta<^€<jTa.Ta  Trapi'o-rrjatv  ort  ixx]  vehv  vndpxei  to  <rvyypa/u.nxa  (Euseb.  N.  K. 
iii.  38).  ••  Omiiino  grandis  in  luraque  similituclo  est"  (Jer.  De  Virr.  iUust. ).  "  Dcr  Hebra- 
erbrief  ist  ganz  und  gar  in  sein  Dcnken  iibergecangen  "  (Tholuck,  Einleit.  2).  Yet,  strange  to 
say.  Clemens  never  mentions  it  by  name.  Tms  alone  seems  almost  fatal  to  the  Pauline  au- 
thorship 

'  Jer.  Procrm.  in  Ef>.  nd  Tit.  Basilides  was  a  Gnostic,  but  he  seems  to  have  adopted 
the  ordinary  Canon  of  his  day  ;  this,  therefore,  would  seem  to  show  that  at  that  time  the  Alex- 
andrians did  not  recognise  the  Episde  as  .St.  Paul's. 

*  Steph.  Gobar,  ap.  Phot.  Bibl.  Cod.  iii.  291  (Migne,);  and  also  Photius  himself  (Wieseler, 
Untersuch.  i.  12). 

'•  Gicsclcr,  i.  §  341.  On  Hippolytus  see  Kurtz,  A'.  G.  i.  106.  Mommsen,  Al'hnudl.  d. 
Sdchs.  Gesellsch.  i.  595.  '  *  The  Bt/3At'ov  Sia\e^ei»v  Sta^opiov. 

'  The  fragment  in  which  he  is  supposed  to  quote  Heb.  .\iii.  14  {.Stieren's  Irc7iacus,  i.  854, 
teq.  ;  ii.  361,  seq.)  is  of  very  doubtful  genuineness,  and  even  if  genuine  proves  nothing. 

"  Gains,  ///.  Euscb.  //.  A",  vi.  20.  As  he  makes  this  remark  in  immediate  connexion  with 
severe  animadversions  on  the  precipitance  [nponereiav)  and  audacity  of  those  who  admitted 
the  authenticity  of  spurious  writings,  it  would  appear  that  he  even  regarded  the  Pauline  hypo- 
thesis with  some  indignation  ;  and  as  he  was  a  Ao-ytuiTaTOs  ayrip,  his  opinion  is  important. 
Nothing,  however,  is  known  of  Gains,  and  Up.  I.ightfoot  ijourn.  of  F/tilology,\.  98)  has  con- 
jectured that  lie  is  none  other  than  Hippolytus  using  his  own  pricnom<Mi  as  an  inierJocutor  in 
ihc  dialogue  .igain.st  Montanisni. 


APPENDIX.  691 

to  it,  or  only  under  the  damaging  description  of  a  letter  to 
the  Alexandrians,  current  under  the  name  of  Paul,  but  forged 
in  the  interests  of  Marcion's  heresy  ("ad  haeresim  Marcio- 
nis'')^  It  is  remarkable  that  Marcion,  in  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  rejected  it,  though  many  passages  might  have 
been  used  to  support  his  views.  Novatian,  useful  as  it  would 
have  been  to  him,  and  frequently  as  he  quotes  Scripture,  never 
even  alludes  to  it.  Tertullian  (f  a.d.  240)  ascribes  it  to  St. 
Barnabas,"  and  did  not  regard  it  as  a  work  of  St.  Paul,  for  he 
taunts  Marcion  with  falsifying  the  number  of  St.'  Paul's  Epis- 
tles by  omitting  (only)  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  St.  Cyprian  (f 
A.D.  258),  in  his  voluminous  treatises,  neither  quotes  nor 
mentions  it.  Victorinus  (f  a.d.  303)  ignores  it.  It  is  sep- 
arated or  omitted  in  some  of  the  oldest  MSS.  of  the  Vetus 
Itala.'  The  first  writer  of  the  Western  Church  who  ascribes 
it  to  St.  Paul  (and  probably  because  he  found  it  so  ascribed  in 
Greek  writers)  is  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  who  died  a.d.  2>^^-'^  It 
was  not  till  quite  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  that  in  the 
Western  Church  it  bega*n  to  be  popularly  accepted  as  St.  Paul's. 
As  this  popular  acceptance  at  that  late  epoch  does  not  possess 
any  critical  importance,  it  is  needless  to  enumerate  the  names 
of  writers  who  merely  run  in  the  ordinary  groove.  Among 
those  writers  who  really  thought  about  the  matter  doubts  as 
to  the  Pauline  authorship  were  expressed — ^as,  for  instance, 
by  Isidore  of  Seville — as  late  as  the  seventh  century.^     Now, 


1  If  "  Gaius"  was,  as  Muratori  thought,  the  author  of  the  celebrated  Canon,  the  next  re- 
mark, "  fel  enim  cum  melle  misccri  noucongruit,"  would  harmonise  with  the  severe  sentiments 
alluded  to  in  the  previous  note,  and  there  would  be  an  additional  sting  in  this  if  we  accept  the 
suggested  allusion  to  Heb.  xii.  15,  and  the  reading,  ev  x°^V  ^^r  ^''^X^W*  ^^^  writer  of  the 
Canon  says  that  St.  Paul  only  wrote  (hke  St.  John)  to  j<'7'i'«  Churches.  Delitzsch  and  Liine- 
mann  say  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  cannot  be  meant  by  the  "Epistle  to  the  Alexan- 
drians," because  it  is  anonymous  ;  but  the  writer  of  the  Canon  does  not  .say  that  it  was  "  in- 
scribed"' with  the  name  of  Paul.  (See  Wieseler,  i.  27.  and  Hesse.  Dds  Murat.  Frag.  p. 
201  /f.)  2  Xert.  c.  Marc.  v.  20. 

3  No  name  is  attached  to  it  in  the  Peshito,  and  the  fact  that  in  that  version  it  is  placed 
after  all  the  thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  in  spite  of  its  size  and  importance,  seems  to  show 
decisively  that  the  Syriac  translators  did  not  regard  it  as  the  work  of  the  Aposde  (Wieseler, 
Kine  Untersuchung  ilber  d.  Hebrderbrief  (i86i),  i.  9).  It  is  only  in  later  Syriac  versions 
that  it  is  called  "  The  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Hebrews." 

*  In  the  fourth  century  neither  Phoebadius,  nor  Zeno,  nor  Hilary  the  Deacon,  nor  Optatus 
once  quote  it,  though  they  frequently  quote  .St.  Paul  ;  nor,  in  the  fifth  century,  Siricius,  Cae- 
lestine  I.,  Leo  the  Great,  Orosius,  Evagrius,  or  Sedulms.  St.  Ambrose  (t  397),  a  student  of 
Greek  writers,  quotes  it  as  .St.  Paul's,  and  .so  does  his  friend  Philastrius  ;  but  the  latter  tells 
that  it  was  not  read  to  the  people  in  church,  or  only  "sometimes,"  and  (in  another  passage) 
that  it  had  been  ordained  by  the  .Apostles  and  their  successors  that  only  thirteen  Epistles  of 
St  Pa^il  (and  therefore  tiot  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews)  should  be  read  in  the  Catholic  Church. 
Latin  writers  misunderstood,  and  therefore  found  it  difficult  to  accept,  the  phrase  "To  Him 
that  made  Him,"  rep  TTottjcrai'Tt  avrov  ("  quia  afnctn/n  Ckristwn  dixit"),  in  iii.  2  ;  and  they 
looked  with  suspicion  on  the  rhetorical  style  [''  qu\7K  rhetor  ice  scripsit  .sermone  plausibili"), 
and  disliked  the  use  made  by  the  Novatian  schismatics  of  vi.  4-8,  which  St.  Ambrose  finds  it 
hard  to  reconcile  with  St.  Paul's  conduct  to  the  Corinthian  offender  {De  Foenitent.  ii.  2).  Tiic 
intrinsic  greatness  of  the  Epistle  overcame  these  hesitations,  and,  when  once  accepted,  it  was 
accepted  as  St.  Paul's  on  the  supposed  authority  and  undoubted  custom  of  the  .'Vle.xandriaii 
writers.  ^  t  a.d.  636. 


692  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

even  if  this  fact  stood  alone — that  the  Western  Church  for 
nearly  four  centuries  refused  to  admit  the  Pauline  authorship 
— we  should  regard  it  as  fatal  to  that  hypothesis.  And  for 
this  reason.  If  it  had  been  written  by  St.  Paul,  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  St.  Clemens  of  Rome,  his  contemporary  and 
friend,  should  not  have  known  that  it  was  so.  St.  Paul  was 
not  thus  in  the  habit  of  concealing  an  identity  which,  on  the 
contrary,  he  habitually  placed  in  the  foreground.  Sut  if  St. 
Clemens  had  been  aware  that  it  was  really  a  work  of  St.  Paul, 
nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  he  would  have  men- 
tioned so  precious  a  truth  to  the  Church  of  which  he  was 
bishop.  If  he  said  anything  at  all  about  the  authorship,  it 
must  have  been  that  whoever  wrote  it  Paul  did  not.  Thus, 
and  thus  only,  can  we  account  for  the  conviction  of  the  Roman 
Church  for  nearly  four  centuries,  that  the  opinion  about  it  in 
the  Eastern  Church  was  erroneous.  To  say  that  St.  Clemens, 
"in  his  love  for  the  author,  would  not  do  what  the  author 
himself  has  not  done;  he  would  not  betray  the  secret,  &c.," 
is  to  overlook  plain  facts  in  the  desire  to  support  current 
traditions.  Anyone  may  see  for  himself  that  the  author, 
though  he  does  not  mention  his  own  name,  has  no  w^ish  to 
conceal  his  identity  from  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  and,  in- 
deed, assumes  that  they  were  perfectly  aware  who  it  was  who 
was  thus  addressing  them.  The  Apostolic  letters,  it  must  be 
remembered,  were  always  conveyed  to  their  destination  by 
responsible  and  accredited  messengers.  No  Apostolic  Church 
would  have  paid  attention  to  an  unauthenticated  epistle. 

How  very  little  weight  can  be  attached  to  the  quotation  of 
the  Epistle  in  a  loose  and  popular  way  as  St.  Paul's  may  be 
seen  in  the  case  of  two  great  men,  St.  Jerome  (f  a.d.  420) 
and  St.  Augustine  (f  a.d.  430).  By  their  time — in  the  fifth 
century — the  current  of  irresponsible  opinion  ran  strongly  in 
favour  of  the  Pauline  authorship,  and  to  throw  any  doubt 
upon  it  was  to  brave  the  charge  of  being  arrogant  or  unortho- 
dox. It  is  not,  therefore,  surprising  that  both  these  remark- 
able men  in  an  ordinary  way  speak  of  the  Epistle  as  St.  Paul's 
in  passages  where  they  merely  wish  to  make  an  allusion  with- 
out exciting  a  controversy.  They  were  justified  in  doing  this, 
because  they  saw  that  even  though  it  could  not  have  been 
written  by  St.  Paul,  yet  it  was  Pauline  in  its  main  doctrines. 
In  ordinary  treatises  it  was  not  desirable  to  be  constantly 
correcting  the  multitude.  But  when  they  are  Avriting  carefully 
and  accurately  they  are  too  independent  not  to  indicate  their 
real  opinion.     St.  Jerome  over  and  over  again  quotes  it  as  St. 


ArrENDix.  693 

Paul's,  yet  often  with  the  addition  of  some  doubting  or  depre- 
catory phrase.  When  he  deals  directly  with  the  question,  he 
treats  it  as  unimportant,  but  admits  that  the  Epistle  was  ac- 
cepted with  some  hesitancy,'  and  that  many  considered  it  to 
be  the  work  of  Barnabas  or  Clemens.^  St.  Augustine  often 
quotes  it  as  St.  Paul's,  and  his  authority  had  probably  no 
small  share  in  influencing  the  Synods,  which  declared  it  to  be 
authentic.^  Yet  in  his  later  writings  he  so  constantly  quotes 
it  merely  as  "the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  that  Lardnersays, 
"One  would  think  that  he  studiously  declines  to  call  it 
Paul's.'"  The  "accommodation''  to  which  these  eminent 
writers  condescended  in  popularly  referring  to  it  as  being  (in 
a  sense)  a  work  of  the  Apostle,  led  to  the  rigidity  of  the  ordi- 
nary acceptance;  yet  even  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century 
"no  Latin  commentary  on  it  was  known  to  Cassiodorus."^ 

The  opinion  of  the  Eastern  Church  originated  in  Alexan- 
dria. To  the  Alexandrian  School,  though  they  did  not  discover 
the  secret  of  the  authorship,  the  Epistle  was  extremely  pre- 
cious, because  it  exactly  expressed  their  own  views,  and  was 
founded  on  premises  with  which  they  were  familiar.  It  was, 
therefore,  natural  that  they  should  desire, to  give  it  as  high  an 
authority  as  possible;  and  in  the  Epistle  itself  they  found  a 
general  support  for  the  notion  that  it  was  written  by  St.  Paul. 


1  Even  Rufinus,  though  he  supposed  it  to  be  by  St.  Paul,  adds,  "  Si  quis  tanien  earn  re- 
ceperit."     {^hivect.  in  Ilieron.) 

'^  His  opinion  seems  to  have  wavered  more  than  once  (see  Blcek,  Introd.),  hut  he  never 
felt  at  all  sure  that  St.  Paul  wrote  it.  "  Qnicuiique  est  ille^  qui  ad  Hebraeos  scripsit  episto- 
1am"  [CotJun.  in  Amos,  ^).  '"''  Si  quis  •unit  rrcipe7-e  earn  epistolam  quae  sub  nomine  Pauli 
ad  Hebraeos  scripta  est"  {Comment,  in  Tit.).  "  Relege  ad  Hebi^os  epistolam  Pauli,  si7'e 
ciijuscunque  aiterius  cam  esse putas.,  quia  jam  inter  ecclesiasticas  est  recepta  "  [id.].  "  Kt 
Paulus  apost^is  loquitur,  si  quis  ianie?i  ad  Hebraeos  epistolam  suscipit  "  (/«  Rzek.  xxviii.). 
"  Omnes  Graeci  recipiimt  et  nonnulli  Latinorum''''  {Comtn.  in  Matt.  c.  26).  "  Licet  de  ea 
multi  Latinorum  dubitent"  {Catal.  59).  "Apud  Romanos  usque  hodie  quasi  apostoli  Pauli 
non  habetur"  (/«  Is.  viii.  18).  "Pauli  quoque  idcirco  ad  Hebraeos  epistolae  contradicitur, 
quod  ad  Hebraeos  scribens  utatur  testimoniis  quae  in  Hebraeis  voluminibus  non  habentur" 
[in  Is.  vi.  9).  "Et  nihil  interesse  cujus  sit,  cum  ecclesiastici  viri  sit,  et  quotidie  ecclesiarum 
Icctione  celebretur  "  [Ep.  129,  ad  Dard.),  etc. 

3  Hippo.  A.u.  393  ;  Third  Council  of  Carthage,  A.u.  398;  Fifth  Council  of  Carthage,  a.d. 
419.  r>ut  the  two  former  Councils  only  say  "  Thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  one  of  his  to 
the  Hebrews." 

'  Ihe  force  of  truth  compels  him  to  insert  an  occasional  caution,  such  as  "  Quamquam  non- 
nullis  incerta  sit ;  "  "quoquo  modo  se  habeat  ista  quaestio  ;  "  "quam  plures  apostoli  Pauli 
esse  dicunt,  quidam  vero  ncgant,"  etc.  See  the  many  passages  referred  to  in  the  exhaustive 
citalogue  of  IJlcek,  from  whom  all  succeeding  commentators  have  freely  borrowed.  Iv'othing 
can  show  more  forcibly  the  manner  in  which  writer  after  writer  will  snatch  at  the  most  futile 
explanation  of  something  which  tells  against  a  current  notion  than  that  we  find  Augustine  re- 
peating the  absurdity,  which  has  lasted  down  to  our  own  day,  that  St.  Paul  concealed  his 
name  in  order  not  to  offend  the  Jews!  "  Principium  salutatorium  de  industria  dicitur  omi- 
sisse.  ne  Judaei  7tomin&  ejus  offcnsi  vel  inimico  animo  kgerent,  vel  omnino  non  legerent," 
etc.  [Expos.  Ep.  ad  Rom.  §  11). 

^  Davidson,  ii.  227.  That  the  old  hesitation  continued  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  it 
formed  originally  no  part  of  1)  (Codex  Claromontanus),  is  omitted  in  G  (Cod.  l^oernerianus), 
and  is  only  found  in  Latin  in  F  (Cod.  Augiensis).  'I'iie  two  latter  MSS.  are  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury.    \\\  the  Vulgate  it  is  placed  after  Philemon. 


694  I^HE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

(a.)  But  this  assertion  cannot  be  traced  farther  back  than 
to  the  unsupported  guess  of  the  venerable  Pant^nus.  "The 
blessed  Presbyter,"  as  Clemens  of  Alexandria  (f  a.d.  220) 
calls  him  in  a 'passage  of  his  last  work,  the  Hypotyposcs,''  as- 
signed two  reasons  why  St.  Paul  had  not  mentioneS  his  own 
name  in  the  salutation,  as  he  does  in  every  other  Epistle.  It 
was,  he  said,  because  the  Lord  Himself  had  been  sent  to  the 
Hebrews  as  an  Apostle  of  the  Almighty,"  so  that  St.  Paul  sup- 
pressed his  own  name  out  of  modesty;  and  it  also  was  because 
St.  Paul  was  a  herald  and  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  so  that  a  let- 
ter from  him  to  the  Hebrews  was,  so  to  speak,  a  work  of  super- 
erogation.' Both  these  attempts  to  explain  a  fact  so  dam- 
aging to  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  letter  are  untenable. 
If  St.  Peter  in  writing  to  Jews  calls  himself  an  Apostle,  there 
was  no  reason  why  St.  Paul  should  have  scrupled  to  give  him- 
self the  same  title;  nor  was  the  division  of  office  between  him 
and  the  other  Apostles  so  rigid  as  to  prevent  his  addressing 
Jews.  The  "Apostolic  compact"  did  not  prevent  St.  Peter 
from  addressing  Gentiles.  If  it  was  thus  rigid,  it  tells  against 
St.  Paul's  having  written  this  Epistle  at  all,  but  not  against 
his  authenticating  it  with  his  name.  He  constantly  addressed 
Jews,  and  constantly  maintained  against  them  his  indepen- 
dent right  to  the  highest  order  of  the  Apostolate.  In  writing 
to  them  he  would  have  been  /^^i-/ inclined  to  waive  the  dignity 
which  he  had  received  directly  from  his  Lord.  No  authority 
can  therefore  be  allowed  to  the  opinion  of  Pantaenus.  It  was 
a  conjecture  derived  from  the  references  at  the  close  of  the 
letter,  and  possifely  even  from  the  false  reading  ''my  chains'' 
(rots  8€o-/xots  /Aov)  instead  of  "prisoners"  (8eor/xtots)  yn  x.  34.* 
The  conjectural  suggestions  by  which  he  tried  to  support  his 
opinion  are  so  weak  that  they  actually  tell  against  it,  and  show 
that  the  eminence  of  Pantaenus  by  no  means  consisted  in  a 
power  of  critical  discernment. 

ijf).  If  the  great  St.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  accepted 
the  Pauline  authorship,  he  did  so  mainly  in  deference  tp  the 

^  Ap-  Euscb.  H.  E.  vi.  13.  It  is  dear  that  if  Eusebius  had  found  any  traces  of  an  earlier 
tradition  he  would  have  mentioned  them,  for  he  brings  together  all  the  reasons  he  can  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Pauline  authorship.  His  statement,  therefore,  tends  to  prove  that  even  in  the 
Eastern  Church  the  Episde,  in  spite  of  its  obvious  phenomena,  had  not  been  assigned  to  St. 
Paul  by  any  writer  or  by  any  tradition  of  importance  in  the  first  two  centuries.  (Wieseler,  i. 
'5)        ,  ^  ^         ^      -  The  expression  was  taken  by  Clemens  from  Heb.  iii.  I. 

^         Aio  ^<Tptrm7Ta  .   .  .  hih.  re  TTjf  npos  Toi'  Kupioi'  riptiji'  fiiei  re  to  sk  nepiovirias  Kai  TOi? 
E'Jpaiot?  «ffia-TcAAeii'.      (Hypotyf>oses  ;  a/>.  Euseb. //./•:.  vi.  14.) 

*  Euthaliub  (cir.  460)  especially  refers  to  Tois  6eo-/aoi?  ixov  ns  one  of  the  arguments  for  the 
raulmc  authorship.  (Mignc,  J'atr.  Craec.  l.\x.\v.  776,  nj>.  Bleek  ;  Alford,  iv.  1,  p.  15.)  Toi? 
fl«<rmoi«  IS  the  reading  of  A,  D,  the  Vulg,,  Pcshito,  etc.  Kut  even  if  the  received  text  be 
right  (with  K,  K,  H,  K,  etc.),  there  is  no  proof  that  the  writer  is  St.  Paul,  but  only  that  the 
wnter  had  been  in  prison— a  common  case  with  Chri-tians  of  the  first  century. 


APPENDIX.  695 

opinion  of  Pant?enus,  and  only  in  a  modified  form.  For 
although  he  often  quotes  the  Epistle  as  St.  Paul's,  he  was 
aware  of  the  difficulties  of  such  on  opinion.  He  supposed 
that  the  letter  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  and  was 
translated  into  Greek  by  St.  Luke.  This  notion  may  have 
originated  in  the  resemblance  of  style  between  it  and  the 
Acts.  With  this  suggestion  we  shall  deal  later  on.  But  mean- 
while St.  Clemens,  not  content  with  the  explanation  offered 
by  Pantcenus  of  the  anonymity  of  the  letter,  relies  on  another, 
which  is  still  more  groundless.  St.  Paul  suppressed  his  name, 
he  says,  because  he  did  not  wish  to  divert  the  attention  of  the 
Jews  from  his  arguments,  being  well  aware  that  they  had 
taken  a  prejudice  against  him  and  looked  on  him  with  sus- 
picion.^ Thus  even  St.  Clemens  contents  himself  with  a  reason 
which  will  not  stand' a  single  moment's  consideration.  The 
tone  of  the  letter  throughout,  as  well  as  the  closing  saluta- 
tions, prove  that  the  writer  is  known  to  his  readers;"  and  the 
supposition  that  he  wanted  to  entrap  their  attention  before 
revealing  his  identity  is  too  singular  for  serious  refutation.^ 

(c.)  There  is  no  ancient  writer  whose  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject would  carry  more  weight  than  that  of  Origen,  whose 
splendid  originality  was  not  crushed  by  his  immense  eru- 
dition. Now  it  is  quite  true  that  Origen  frequently  quotes 
the  Epistle  as  St.  Paul's,*  but  it  is  no  less  evident  that  he  only 
does  so  in  accordance  with  common  custom,  and  that  by  such 
casual  expressions  he  as  little  intends  to  prejudge  the  ques- 
tion of  authorship  as  the  authors  of  the  Revised  Version,  who 
still  retain  the  name  of  St.  Paul  in  the  title.  A  modern  writer 
who  should  casually  happen  to  quote  "the  Second  Epistle  of 
St.  Peter,"  or  popularly  to  refer  to  Ecclesiastes  as  a  work  of 
King  Solomon,  would  have  a  right  to  feel  himself  aggrieved 
if  such  a  general  reference  was  interpreted  as  the  deliverance 
of  a  final  and  critical  opinion.  Origen,  like  Jerome  and  Au- 
gustine, whenever  he  wishes  to  be  accurate,  introduces  some 
phrase  of  caution  which  indicates  his  own  opinion.  We  knov/ 
what  he  thought  on  the  subject,  for  he  wrote  Homilies  on  this 
Epistle,  which  are  now  unfortunately  lost,  but  of  which  one 
or  two  fragments  have  been  preserved  by  Eusebius.    In  these 

^  Clem.  Alfex.  Hypotyp..  ap.  Euseb.  H.  R.  vi.  14.  Adumbratt.  in  i  Petr.,  p.  1007.  Cle- 
mens was,  it  must  be  admitted,  somewhat  credulous.  _  -  xiii.  18,  23. 

3  See  Bp.  Wordsworth's  surprising  remarks  on  this  subject.  The  unions  of  great  learning 
with  want  of  subtle  discernment  evenin  the  Alexandrian  Sihool  may  be  seen  in  their  accep- 
tance of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  as  authentic  in  spite  of  its  extravagant  allegorising  and  in- 
cipient Gnosticism. 

*  Not  unfrequently,  however,  he  uses  tlie  phrase  Kara  Tov  ctTroo-ToAoi'.  See  the  passages 
in  Bieek's  Introduction. 


CgG  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

we  have  the  deliberate  conclusion  of  the  greatest  of  the  Fathers. 
"That  the  character  of  the  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews," he  says,  "does  not  show  the  unlearnedness  (t6  Ihwri- 
Kovy  of  the  Apostle  who  confessed  that  he  was  unlearned  in 
word  (that  is  to  say,  in  language),  but  that  the  Epistle  is  more 
Hellenic  in  the  structure  of  its  style,  everyone  would  admit 
v.-ho  is  capable  of  judging  the  differences  of  language ;""  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  the  thoughts  of  the  Epistle  are  wonder- 
ful, and  not  inferior  to  the  acknowledged  apostolic  writings, 
t'/iat  too  is  a  truth  which  every  one  would  acknowledge  who 
attends  to  the  reading  of  the  apostolic  works."  He  subse- 
quently attributes  the  tJioiights  to  the  Apostle,  and  the  com- 
position to  some  one  who  made  notes  of  what  the  Apostle 
said.^  "If,  then,"  he  concludes,  "any  Church  holds  this  Epis- 
tle to  be  the  work  of  St.  Paul,  let  it  be  congratulated  {<ivhoKi- 
fjL€LTw)  even  for  this,  since  it  was  not  without  some  grounds 
that  ancient  authorities  have  handed  it  down  as  Paul's.  But 
who  actually  wrote  it  God  only  knows.  The  historical  tradi- 
tion that  has  come  down  to  us  is  divergent:  for  some  say  that 
Clemens,  who  became  Bishop  of  the  Romans,  wrote  the  Epis- 
tle, and  some  that  it  was  Luke,  who  also  wrote  the  Gospel 
»and  the  Acts,"' 

The  passage  is  expressed  somewhat  obscurely,  because  (as 
we  are  sorry  to  admit)  Origen,  with  all  his  courage,  accepted 
the  expediency  of  concession,  in  certain  cases,  to  popular 
ignorance  and  current  prejudice.  It  is  clear  that  he  did  not 
accept  the  Pauline  authorship  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
wgrd.  He  was  too  good  a  scholar,  too  profound  a  student, 
too  familiar  with  the  niceties  of  Greek  expression,  and  too 
unbiassed  a  critic  not  to  perceive  that  the  "style"  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews  is  far  more  correct  than  that  of  St.  Paul. 
He  therefore  held  that  Clemens  of  Rome  may  have  written  it, 
or  that  it  might  be  attributed  to  St.  Luke.  But  he  also  saw 
that  it  came  from  ^/le  School  of  Paul;  that  it  expresses  his 
.sentiments,  and  is,  so  to  speak,  quite  worthy  of  him.    This  is 

^  On  the  exact  import  of  this  word  see  my  Life  and  IVork  of  St.  Paul,  i.  io6. 

-  Oti  .  .  .  ftTTti'  rj  'EjTtcrToAi)  <rvydi<m  Tij?  Ae'fetos  'EAArjftKWTe'pa,  iras  6  eTTiCTTaTrej/o?  Kpi- 
tiii/  <^pacT(U)v  tia<f)opa<;  oiio^oyrjaaL  ov.      (.//.   Kuscb.  //.  /£.  vi.  25.) 

•*  17  6«  «/)paais  >cai  r)  cri'»'f*e(Tis  aTroM.rT)fxoi€u<ravTds  Tti'os  to.  anoaTO^iKa  Koi  uxrirepei  cxoAi- 
oypaifijaai'Toi;  ra  fipr)tieva  vnb  toD  iiSaaKd\ov.     (Ap.  ICuscb.  //.  K.  vi.  25.) 

••  'I'his  hriiited  and  hesitating  expression  implies  that  tne  Churches  generally  rejected  this 
f>I>inioii,  and  perhaps  that  it  prevailed  in  the  Alexandrian  Church  alone.  Now  the  natural 
tendency  would  so  ai)solutely  be  to  ascribe  the  letter  to  St.  Paul,  and  the  grounds  for  doing 
M-»,  if  taken  apart  from  the  objections,  are  so  reasonable  (oux  f.iKj\),  that  the  fact  that  until  this 
view  became  steeotyped  there  were  many  who  rejected  it,  is  of  itself  a  proof  how  strong  were 
the  reasons  which  compelled  them  to  run  counter  to  the  poi)ular  inference.  The  generai  caro- 
pia  was  agamst  the  Pauline  authorship  :  the  local  n-apafioo^is  was  for  it;  and  even  this  was 
probably  reducible  to  the  loose  opinion  of  Panta^nus. 


ArPENDIX.  697 

why  he  does  not  care  to  disturb  the  opinion  of  any  Church 
which  accepted  it,  and  says  that  "the  ancient  authorities" — 
under  which  term  he  vaguely  refers  to  Pantcenusand  Clemens' 
— had  not  been  guided  by  arbitrary  conjecture  in  handing 
down  a  tradition  of  its  Pauline  origin. 

[d.)  The  opinion  of  Eusebius  of  C^.sarea  is  no  less  hesi- 
tating and  wavering.  In  common  parlance  he  quotes  the 
Epistle  as  St.  Paul's,  but  he  too  was  well  aware  that  it  did 
not  belong  to  the  homologoimietia.  He  was  induced  by  the 
style  to  conjecture  that  it  was  a  translation  by  St.  Clemens  of 
Rome  from  a  Plebrew  original."^  He  does  indeed  say  in  one 
place  that  there  ^^r^  fourteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  this 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  had  its  place  as  Pauline  in  the  fifty 
manuscripts  of  the  Canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament 
which  he  caused  to  be  written  out  for  the  Emperor  Constan- 
tine,  who  wished  to  place  them  in  the  churches  of  his  new 
capital.  The  example  of  Eusebius  is  therefore  very  instruc- 
tive. Passage  after  passage  might  be  adduced  from  his  writ- 
ings to  show  that  he  accepted  the  Epistle  as  genuine;  and  yet 
when  he  is  writing  definitely  and  accurately  he  says,  "The 
thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  manifest  and  clear.  It  would 
not,  however,  be  fair  to  ignore  that  some  have  regarded  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  spurious  {y)B^TrjKaat),  saying  that  it 
is  opposed  {avriXiy^aOai)  by  the  Church  of  Rome  as  not  being 
by  St.  Paul."  Popular  reference  is  one  thing,  and  accurate 
statement  is  another.  In  disputed  questions  a  current  allu- 
sion possesses  no  critical  importance.  And  this  statement  of 
Eusebius  is  remarkable  as  showing  that,  in  spite  of  the  general 
truth  of  St.  Jerome's  remark  that  "all  the  Creeks  accept," 
there  were  some  even  in  the  Greek  Church  who  were  in  doubt 
about  it."  Can  any  honest  man  read  this  review  of  the  early 
patristic  evidence  without  feeling  that  it  is  on  the  whole  un- 
favourable to  the  theory  of  the  Pauline  authorship? 


EXCURSUS   IX. 


MINOR    RESEMBLANCES    BETWEEN    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE 
HEBREWS    AND    THE    WORKS    OF    PHILO. 

A  few  separate  instances  may  here  be  thrown  together  of 
minor  points  of  contact  between  the  language  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  and  that  of  Philo: — 


'  Hug  [Rinleit.  ii.  317),  Delitzsch  {Hebr.  %  xvii.),  and  Bleek  all  exaggerate  the  meaning 
of  these  expressions.     (See  Wioseler,  i.  17.)  2  Kuseb.  //.  TT.  iii.  3,  38  ;  vi.  13. 

3  We  learn  this  also  from  the  Iambics  of  Amphilochius,  who  says  that  tu'es  rejected  it  ; 
Tives  hi  ^(xqX  t^v  Trpbs  'EjSpaiov;  voQov  ovk  e5  AeyocTe?. 


698  THE    EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

{(I.)  In  iii.  7 — 15  the  writer  lays  great  stress  on  the  word 
"/o-i/civ/'  Philo  defines  "to-day"  as  "the  infinite  and  inter- 
minable aeon,"  and  says  "Till  to-day;  that  is  for  ever."  ' 

(<^.)  In  ii.  6  he  quotes  from  a  Psalm  by  saying  that  "o/ie, 
somnuhere,  testified''  (ttou  ns).  He  was  of  course  aware  that 
the  Psalm  is  assigned  to  David;  but  the  same  vague  form  of 
quotation  is  found  frequently  in  Philo. 

{c.)  In  iii.  2  we  find  the  remark,  '' He  that  builded  the  house 
hath  more  hofiour  than  the  house.''  Philo  uses  the  same  argu- 
ment.* 

{d).  In  iv.  15  he  says  that  Christ  shared  in  all  our  infirmi- 
ties, ''except  sin."  Philo  says  that  "the  High  Priest  is  not 
man,  but  the  Divine  Word,  free  from  all  share  not  only  in 
willing  but  even  in  involuntary  wrongdoing,"^ and  speaks  also 
of  the  mercy  and  gentleness  of  His  nature.* 

{e.)  The  word  fx^TpLOTraOelv — literally  *'to  suffer  moderate/y" 
— in  V.  2  is  found  also  in  Philo,  though  it  does  not  occur  in 
the  Septuagint  or  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament. 

i'/.)  In  vi.  5  he  speaks  of  "tasting  the  utterance  of  God.'' 
Philo  speaks  of  the  utterance  {rhcma)  as  well  as  the  Word 
(Logos)  of  God,  and  speaks  of  its  nourishing  the  soul  like 
manna.  ^ 

(g.)  In  vi.  13  we  have  the  distinction  between  God's  7C'ord 
and  K'ls  oath ^  and  the  impossibility  of  His  swearing  by  any 
but  Himself.  We  find  in  Philo  the  same  thought  and  the  same 
expressions." 

(//.)  In  vii.  17  the  High  Priest  is  said  (without  rigid  accu- 
racy) to  offer  sacrifices  dai/y.  Philo  uses  the  same  expres- 
sion." 

(/.)  In  ix.  16,  17  he  avails  himself  of  the  two  senses  of  dia- 
theke^  a  "covenant"  and  a  "will."     Philo  does  the  same.* 

(y.)  In  x.  3  he  speaks  of  sacrifices  involving  "a  re?nem- 
hranee  o(  sin."  Philo  says  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  godless 
do  not  work  a  remission,  but  a  remembrance  of  sin,  and  that 
they  force  us  to  recall  our  ignorances  and  transgressions." 

(h.)  In  xiii.  5  he  uses  the  quotation,  "/  7C'i//  never  leave 


^  Leg.  aUeg^.\<\.%;  De  prof u^.%\\.     (Mangey,  i.  92,  554.) 

'  De  plant.  Noe,  §  16:    oo-w  6  KXTjo-a/xeco;  tov  KTi],:^aTOi  afieiviav  Kat  to  TrcTrouj/cos  tov 
ytyof&ro^. 

'  Pf  pro  fug.  §  20.     (Mane.  i.  563.) 

;•/./.  §.8      (.Mang.  1.559,56..) 

*  neprofug.  %  25  ;   Leg.  aUegg.  iii.  60.     (Mang.  i.  564,  120.) 

«  Leg.  nUcgg.  \\\.  72  ;  De  .Urahaiit.  §  46.     {Mancj.  i.  128:  cf.   181,  ii.  39.) 

'  A)<f  fpec.  leg.  \  23.     iv\aM  kox  evaia<:  reAwi/  icaO'  ejcao-nji/  r)tLip<LV. 

"  De  nam.  viutat.  %  6.     (Mang.  i.  586.)     Cf.  De  .Sacr.  Abel.    (Mang.  i.  172.) 

»  De  plant,  ^ae,  §  25  ;  De  vit.  Mos.  iii.  %  10.     (Mang.  i.  345,  ii,  246.) 


APPENDIX.  699 

thee  nor  forsake  tkee/'  In  that  form  the  words  are  not  exactly 
found  in  Scripture,  but  Philo  quotes  from  Scripture  in  the 
same  words/ 

EXCURSUS   X. 

'*  SALEM  "    AND    JERUSALEM. 

One  passage  alone  is  adduced  from  Scripture  in  proof  that 
Salem  may  be  used  as  a  shortened  poetical  form  for  Jerusa- 
lem, namely,  Ps.  Ixxvi.  2,  "In  Salem  also  is  his  tabernacle 
and  his  dwelling-place  in  Zion.^'  But  not  to  dwell  on  the  fact 
that  this  can  only  be  a  poetic  licence,  and  that  we  should  not 
expect  to  find  an  isolated  recurrence  of  it  in  a  plain  historic 
narrative,  the  meaning  of  that  verse  cannot  be  regarded  as 
indisputable.  The  Psalmist  may  be  referring  to  the  Salem  of 
Melchizedek  as  a  different  place  from  Jerusalem.  Again,  the 
word  may  mean  "peace;"  and  both  the  LXX.  and  the  Vul- 
gate render  it,  "His  place  has  been  made  in  peace.'"  Be- 
sides this,  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  and  for  centuries  after- 
wards, Jerusalem  was  only  known  by  the  name  Jebus."*  But 
though  the  Targums  render  Salem  by  Jerusalem  in  this  pas- 
sage of  Genesis,*  it  was  an  old  tradition  that  the  Salem  in- 
tended is  the  city  near  Shechem  which  is  mentioned  in  Gen. 
xxxiii.  18  and  John  iii,  23.^  There  was  a  town  of  this  name 
near  to  ^non,"  and  its  site  has  been  traditionally  preserved. 
The  former  passage  is  again  doubtful.  The  verse  is  rendered 
by  the  Targums,  by  Josephus,  and  by  many  eminent  scholars,^ 
not  ''Jacob  came  to  Shalem^  a  city  of  Shechem,''  hnt'' Jacob 
came  in  safety  to  the  city  of  Shechem.''  The  Samaritans  always 
maintained  that  it  was  at  Gerizim  that  Melchizedek  had 
met  Abraham;  and  St.  Jerome  tells  us  that  the  most  learned 
Jews  of  his  days  regarded  this  town  as  the  Salem  of  Melchi- 
zedek, and  the  ruins  of  a  large  palace'were  shown  there  which 
was  called  the  Palace  of  Melchizedek.®  It  is  therefore  doubt- 
ful whether  Jerusalem  is  intended,  especially  since  the  writer 
touches  so  very  slightly  on  the  name.    The  word  Salem®  means 

^  De  con/,  ling.  %  33.     ov  \Lr\  <re  ai-w  ou5*  ou  jutrj  <re  eyKaTaXtVw.     (Mang.  i.  430.) 

2  LXX.  kyiv-qQi]  kv  eiprjvj}  6  tottos  avTOu.     Vulg.,  "  Et  factiis  est  in  pace  locus  ejus." 

3  Judg.  xi.x.  10,  II,  etc.  ;  2  Sam.  v.  6.  *  So,  too,  Jos.  Anti.  i.  10,  §  2  x. 
^  It  is  mentioned  aiso  in  Judith  iv.  4. 

*  Jerome  says,  "  Salem  civitas  Sicimorum  quae  est  Sichem."  It  would  be  more  accurate 
to  say  that  it  was  near  Shechem.  He  places  it  eight  miles  south  of  Bethshean  {Onom.  s.  v. 
Ef>.  ad  Evatig.  i).  The  ruined  well  there  is  now  called  Sheikh  Salim  (Robinson,  Bil'l.  Kes. 
i'i-  333)'  ^  E.g.,  Knobel,  Tuch,  Delitzsch,  and  Kalisch  on  Gen.  x.xxiii.  18. 

*  Jer.  nd  Kvagr,  See,  too,  the  tradition  preserved  by  Eupolemos  {a/>.  Euseb.  Piaep. 
Rva'ng.  ix.  17),  that  Abram  was  entertained  at  Gerizim  (Ewald  Gesck.  iii.  239 ;  Stanley,  Sin. 
and  Pal.,  p.  237).  "  tV». 


700  THE   EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

rather  "peaceful"  than  "peace;"  and  hence  some  agam  have 
supposed  that  "peaceful  king"  was  a  title  of  Melchizedek/ 
and  one  which  marked  him  out  still  more  specially  as  a  type 
of  the  Messiah;'  but  this  is  a  late  and  improbable  conjec- 
ture. It  may,  however,  be  justly  maintained  that  the  typical 
character,  of  Melchizedek  would  rather  be  impaired  than  en- 
hanced by  his  being  a  king  of  Jerusalem.  For  Jerusalem  was 
the  holy  town  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  and  it  might  seem 
more  fit  that  the  Royal  Priest  should  have  been  connected 
with  some  other  sanctuary  as  a  type  of  Him  in  Whose  day 
"neither  in  this  mountain  nor  yet  in  Jerusalem  should  men 
worship  the  Father,"  but  should  worship  Him  in  all  places 
acceptably,  if  they  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 


EXCURSUS    XI. 

THE    ALTAR    OF    INCENSE    AND    THE    HOLIEST    PLACE. 

The  altar  of  incense  (like  the  altar  of  burnt-offering)  was 
called  Holy  of  Holies  (Ex.  xxx.  lo),  and  in  Ex.  xxx.  6;  xl.  5, 
it  is  expressly  said  to  be  placed  "before  the  mercy-seat,"  and 
"before  the  ark  of  the  testimony."  From  its  very  close  con- 
nexion with  the  ceremony  of  the  Day  of  Atonement,  on  which 
it  was  (as  well  as  the  mercy-seat)  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of 
the  sin-offering  (Lev.  xvi.  18),  it  is  called  in  i  Kings  vi.  22, 
"the  altar  that  is  by  the  oracle,"  or,  rather,  "which  belongs 
to  the  oracle."  It  is  clear,  then,  (i)  that  a  peculiar  sanctity 
appertained  to  the  altar  beyond  the  sanctity  of  the  other  things 
which  were  in  the  Holy  Place  ;^  and  (2)  that  its  position  was 
close  to  the  veil,  and  in  immediate  relation  to  the  position  of 
the  Ark,  of  which  it  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  an  appur- 
tenance. Even  on  these  grounds  the  Holiest  might  be  gener- 
ally said  "to  have"  or  contain  the  incense-altar.  But  then  (3) 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  writer  is  thinking  specially  of 
the  Day  of  Atonement,  and  on  that  day  the  inner  veil  was  lifted 
by  the  high  priest,  so  that  the  Holiest  and  the  Holy  Place 
might  (on  that  day)  be  regarded  as  a  single  sanctuary,'*  which 
would  give  still  minuter  accuracy  to  the  term  used.  Nor  is 
this  a  mere  conjecture.     In  the  vision  of  Isaiah  (vi.  i — 8)  the 

'  In  Hcrcshith  R.ibba  it  is  said  that  Melcht  Shalem  means  "perfect  king,"  and  that  he 
was  so  calle(l  because  he  was  circumcised— referring  to  Gen.  xvii.  i  {vide  Schottgen,  ad loc), 
Philo  calls  him  "  king  of  peace  (for  that  is  the  meaning  of  Salem)  "  {Leg.  allegg.  iii.  25). 

'  Is.  ix.  5  ;  Col.  i.  20,  etc. 

•  Incense  was  supposed  to  have  an  atoning  power  (Yoma,  f.  44,  a  ;  Num.  xvi.  47). 

♦  Sec  a  Paper  by  Prof.  Milligan,  in  the  Bible  Educator,  iii.  230. 


APPENDIX.  701 

prophet  is  supposed  to  be  standing  in  the  Holy  Place,  and  he 
sees  the  Lord  uplifted  on  His  throne  above  the  six-winged 
Seraphim,  just  as  the  Shechinah  was  supposed  to  rest  between 
the  out-stretched  wings  of  the  Cherubim  above  the  mercy- 
seat.  Then  one  of  the  Seraphs  flies  from  the  throne  with  a 
live  coal  in  his  hand,  which  he  had  taken  ''from  off  the  altars 
Similarly,  in  the  vision  of  the  Apocalypse  (viii.  i — 5)  the  seer 
sees  an  angel  with  a  golden  censer,  to  whom  is  given  much 
incense,  that  he  may  offer  it  upon  '' tJie  golden  altar  which  is 
before  the  throne.''  In  these  considerations,  then,  we  may 
fairly  see  the  solution  of  the  difficulty.  The  writer  is  not 
speaking  with  pedantic  minuteness,  but  his  expression  is  justi- 
fiable, and  even  accurate  if  we  place  ourselves  in  his,  point  of 
view,  and  imagine  that  we  are  looking  at  the  Holy  and  the 
Holiest  as  they  appeared  on  the  greatest  day  of  the  Jewish 
year.  But  though  he  has  made  no  mis-statement,  he  comes 
very  near  it,  and  it  is  clear  that  St.  Paul  would  have  written 
with  more  familiar  accuracy  about  these  ritual  details. 


EXCURSUS    XH. 

CEREMONIES  OF  THE  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT. 

At  earliest  dawn  the  High  Priest  chose  a  young  bullock 
for  a  sin-offering  and  a  lamb  for  a  burnt-offering  for  himself 
and  his  house.  After  the  ordinary'  morning  service,  he 
bathed  himself,  and  put  on  his  holy  linen  garments  of  purest 
white  and  of  great  value. ^  Then  he  laid  his  hands  on  the 
head  of  the  young  bullock,  and  confessed  the  sins  of  himself 
and  his  house."  He  next  took  two  kids  for  a  sin-offering  and 
a  ram  for  a  burnt-offering  for  the  sins  of  Israel,^  and  cast  lots 
upon  them  at  the  entrance  of  the  Tabernacle.  The  lots  were 
draw^n  from  a  golden  urn  called  calpi,  which  stood  in  the  Court 
of  the  Priests,  but  close  to  the  worshippers.  One  lot  was  "for 
Jehovah,"  the  other  "for  Azazel."  The  goat  on  which  the 
lot  for  Jehovah  fell  was  sacrificed  for  a  sin-offering.  He 
sacrificed  the  bullock  as  an  atonement  for  himself  and  his 
house,  and  the  priesthood  in  general.  The  blood  of  the  bul- 
lock was  stirred   by  an  attendant  lest  it  should  coagulate. 


^  All  these  bathings  were  done  in  a  special  golden  laver  in  a  little  chamber  called  "  Hap- 
parveh,"  above  the  room  where  they  salted  the  hides  of  the  victims  (Middoth  v.  2  ;  Suren- 
luisius,  Mishnah,  v.  376,  quoted  by  McCaiil,  p.  i55~t. 

'•^  On  these  see  Yoma,  iii.  7,  and  Kderslieim,  The  Temple,  yi.  266 

3  Altogether  he  oflfered  fitteen  animals,  according  to  Maimonides  (see  Lev.  xvi-S  Num. 
xxix.). 


702  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Then  came  the  most  awful  moment  of  all.  Filling  a  censer 
with  burning  coals  from  the  altar,  and  his  hands  with  sweet 
incense  beaten  small,  he  slowly  approached  the  sanctuary, 
and  in  his  white  robes  entered  into  the  presence  of  God 
through  the  veil  of  the  Holiest  Place.  When  he  did  so  he 
was  accompanied,  the  Rabbis  say,  by  three  acolytes,  of  whom 
one  held  him  by  each  hand  and  the  other  by  the  jewels  of  his 
robe.  Entering  the  Holiest,  he  threw  the  incense  on  the 
burning  coals  of  the  censer,  that  the  thick  and  fragrant 
smoke  might  rise  in  a  cloud  between  him  and  the  mercy-seat.^ 
Through  the  smoke,  he  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  bullock 
seven  times  against  the  front  of  the  mercy-seat  and  in  front 
of  it.^  Then,  going  out  and  sacrificing  the  goat  for  the  sins 
of  Israel,  he  sprinkled  its  blood  in  the  same  manner  on  the 
mercy-seat,  thus  making  an  atonement  for  the  Holy  Place 
because  of  the  uncleanness  of  the  children  of  Israel.  Going 
forth  with  the  blood  of  the  bullock  and  the  kid,  he  made  a 
similar  atonement  for  the  great  brazen  altar  of  burnt-offering, 
the  horns  of  which  he  sprinkled  with  the  blood  seven  times. 
Altogether  there  were  forty-three  sprinklings  of  the  blood, 
and  the  remainder  was  poured  away  at  the  base  of  the  great 
altar.  When  the  whole  priesthood  and  sanctuary  were  thus 
cleansed  he  brought  the  live  goat  to  the  door  of  the  Taber- 
nacle, and,  laying  both  his  hands  upon  its  head,  confessed 
over  it  all  the  iniquities,  transgressions,  and  sins  of  the  people, 
and  sent  the  goat  to  carry  those  sins  away  into  the  wilderness, 
into  a  land  not  inhabited,  and  thus  to  free  the  consciences  of 
the  worshippers  from  the  sense  of  unforgiven  guilt.  Divest- 
ing himself  of  the  holy  linen  garments,  which  he  left  in  the 
Holy  Place,  and  which  were  never  to  be  worn  again,  he  once 
more  bathed,  probably  in  the  Court  of  the  Tabernacle,'  and, 
putting  on  his  glorious  apparel  of  purple  and  gold  and  fine 
linen,  with  its  bells  and  pomegranates  and  rich  embroidery, 
he  came  forth  and  offered  the  burnt-offerings  for  himself  and 
the  people,  and  burnt  the  fat  of  the  sin-offering." 


■  This  somewhat  mysterious  proceeding  arose  from  the  dispute  between  the  Sadducees 
aiid  Pharisees,  in  which  the  former  maintained  that  the  incense  should  be  kindled  before  ^q 
Hu{h-I'riest  actually  entered  the  Holy  Place,  whereas  the  Halachah  required  that  it  should 
be  done  nftfr  he  entered. 

-  Sec  Knobcl  on  I,cv.  xvi.  14. 

'  Lev.  xvi.  24,  which  should  be  rendered  "  in  a  "  (not  the)  Holy  Place,  as  in  vi.  16. 
...  *  '  ''^^<^  omitted  some  of  the  less  certain  minutia;.    These  may  be  found  in  Dr.  Edersheim's 
temple  and  its  HerviceSy  chap.  xvi. 


APPENDIX.  703 


EXCURSUS   XIII. 

IMPRESSIONS    LEFT    ON    THE   MINDS   OF    THE    JEWS    BY    THE 
CEREMONIES    OF    THE    DAY    OF    ATONEMENT, 

We  can  trace  in  Jewish  literature  how  powerful  was  the 
impression  which  this  day  and  its  ritual  had  made  upon  the 
Jewish  imagination. 

Thus,  in  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  after  more  briefly 
'mentioning  the  other  worthies  and  heroes  of  Jewish  history, 
the  writer  hngers  longest  and  most  lovingly  on  the  glorious 
figure  of  the  High  Priest  Simon,  the  son  of  Onias,  as  he  ap- 
peared on  the  great  Day  of  Atonement — 

'•  How  was  he  honoured  in  the  midst  of  the  people  in  his  coining  out  of  the 
sanctuary  !  He  was  as  the  morning  star  in  the  midst  of  a  cloud,  and  as  the 
moon  at  the  full ;  as  the  sun  shining  upon  the  Temple  of  the  Mos-t  High,  and 
as  the  rainbow  giving  light  in  the  bright  clouds.  ...  As  fire  and  incense  in 
the  censer,  and" as  a  vessel  of  beaten  gold  set  with  all  manner  of  precious  stones. 
.  .  .  When  he  put  on  the  robe  of  honour,  and  was  clothed' with  the  perfec- 
tion of  glory,  when  he  went  up  to  the  holy  altar,  he  made  the  garment  of  holi- 
ness honourable.  When  he  took  the  portions  out  of  the  priests'  hands  he  him- 
self stood  by  the  hearth  of  the  altar  compassed  with  his  brethren  round  about, 
as  a  young  cedar  in  Lebanon,  and  as  palm-trees  compassed  they  him  round 
about.  So  were  all  the  sons  of  Aaron  in  their  glory,  and  the  oblations  of  the  Lord 
in  their  ^ands,  before  all  the  congregations  of  Israel.  And  finishing  the  service 
at  the  altar,  that  he  might  adorn  the  offering  of  the  Most  High  Almighty,  he 
stretched  out  his  hand  to  the  cup,  and  poured  of  the  blood  of  the  grape,  he  poured 
out  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  a  sweet-smelling  savour  unto  the  Most  High  King  of 
all.  Then  shouted  the  sons  of  Aaron,  and  sounded  die  silver  trumpets,  and 
made  a  great  noise  to  be  heard  for  a  remembrance  before  the  Most  High."  * 

Five  chapters  earlier  he  has  dwelt  with  similar  enthu- 
siasm on  the  person  of  Aaron — • 

"  He  exalted  Aaron,  a  holy  man  like  unto  him  (Moses),  even  his  brother  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi.  An  everlasting  covenant  he  made  with  him,  and  gave  him  the 
priesthood  among  the  people  ;  he  beautified  him  with  comely  omamenrs,  and 
clothed  him  with  a  robe  of  glory.  He  put  upon  him  perfect  glory,  and  strength- 
ened him  with  rich  garments,  with  hosen,  with  a  long  robe,  and  the  ephod. 
And  he  compassed  him  with  pomegranates,  and  with  many  golden  bells  round 
about,  that  as  he  went  there  might  be  a  sound,  and  a  noise  made  that  might  be 
heard  in  the  Temple,  for  a  memorial  to  the  children  of  his  people  ;  with  a  holy 
garment  and  gold,  with  blue  silk  and  purple,  the  work  of  the  embroiderer,  with 
a  breastplate  of  judgment,  and  with  Urim  and  Thummim,  with  twisted  scarlet, 
the  work  of  the  cunning  workman,  with  precious  stones  graven  like  seals,  and 
set  in  gold.  .  .  .  He  set  a  crown  of  gold  upon  the  mitre,  wlicrein  was  en- 
graved Holiness,  an  ornament  of  honour,  a  costly  work,  the  desires  of  the  eyes, 
goodly  and  beautiful.  Before  him  there  were  none  such,  neither  did  any 
stranger  put  them  on,  but  only  his  children,  and  his  children's  children  per- 
petually. Their  sacrifices  shall  be  wholly  consumed  every  day,  twice  continu- 
ally. \Ioses  consecrated  him,  and  anointed  him  with  lioly  oil :  this  was  ap- 
pointed unto  him  by  an  everlasting  covenant,  and  to  his  seed  so  long  as  the 

>  Ecclus.  I.  5-16, 


704  THE    EARLY    DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

hcaicns  should  remain.  ...  He  chose  him  out  of  all  men  living  to  offer 
sacrifices  to  the  Lord,  incense,  and  a  sweet  savour,  for  a  memorial,  to  mnke  re- 
conciliation for  liis  people.  He  gave  unto  him  his  commandments,  and  author- 
ity in  the  statutes  of  his  judgments,  that  he  should  teach  Jacob  the  testimonies, 
and  inform  Israel  in  his  laws."  ^ 

Nor  did  these  intense  feelings  of  admiration  grow  less  keen 
as  time  advanced.  To  the  Jew  of  the  days  of  our  Lord,  the 
High  Priest — degraded  as  was  his  office  by  the  vice  and  vio- 
lence and  unspiritual  greed  of  its  Sadducean  representatives'' 
— was  still  the  most  memorable  figure  of  all  his  nation;  and 
even  their  princes — a  Herod  of  Chalcis,  and  a  Herod  Agrippa 
— thought  it  no  small  enhancement  of  their  dignities  if  they 
received  from  the  Romans  the  special  prerogative  of  keeping 
the  "golden  robes"  of  the  great  Day  of  Atonement.  Nothing 
more  nearly  precipitated  the  civil  war  which  ultimately  ruined 
the  fortunes  of  Judaism  than  the  attempt  of  the  Romans  to 
hold  the  Jews  under  entire  subjection  by  keeping  these  robes 
under  their  Qwn  control,  and  so  having  the  power  to  hinder,  if 
they  chose,  the  one  ceremony  on  which  the  national  well- 
being  was  believed  most  immediately  to  depend. 

Even  long  centuries  after  the  observances  of  Judaism  had 
become  impossible,  Maimonides,  in  his  Yad  Ilachazakah, 
carefully  preserves  for  us  all  the  traditional  precepts  of  the 
Day  of  Atonement — the  fifteen  sacrificial  victims,  the  fumi- 
gation and  cleaning  of  the  lamps  by  the  High  Priest,  the  seven 
days'  seclusion,  the  sprinkling  of  his  person  on  the  third  and 
seventh  day  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer;  the  daily  rehearsal  of 
all  the  rites  which  he  had  to  perform,  the  disputes  between 
the  Sadducees  and  the  Pharisees  about  the  minutiae  of  the 
day;  the  five  baths  and  ten  washings  of  consecration  on  the 
day  itself;  the.jitterance  ten  times  of  the  full  name  of  God; 
the  reason  why  the  name  was  pronounced  in  an  almost  in- 
audible recitative;  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  once  above  and 
seven  times  below  the  mercy-seat,  which  was  traditionally 
developed  into  forty-three  sprinklings;  the  watch-towers  and 
signals  by  which  it  was  indicated  that  the  goat  "for  Azazel" 

'   EccluS.  xlv.  6-22. 

'  The  high-priestly  duties  were  not  only  severe,  but  would  be  most  trying,  and  even  revolt- 
/ng,  to  any  one  who  was  not  animated  by  deep  religious  feelings.  When  the  tract  Pesachim 
(f.  113,  rt),  lays  down  the  rule,  "flay  a  carcase,  and  take  thy  fee,  hut  say  7iot  it  is  IntvtHi- 
ntiiiff,  because  I  am  a  priest,  I  am  a  great  man  ;  "  this  is  doubtless  a  reminiscence  of  the  days 
when  famihcs  Hke  the  Uoethusim  were  only  anxious  to  have  had  the  dignity,  and  so,  like 
modern  aldermtn,  to  "  pass  the  chair."  The  Rabbis  long  remembered  with  scorn  and  indigna- 
tion the  High-priest  fssachar  Kephar  l^arkai,  who  had  silk  gloves  made  for  himself,  that  he 
should  not  boil  his  hands  with  the  sacrifices  !  (Kerithoth,  f.  28  b)  and  Elazar  Ben  Charsom, 
who  wore  a  coat  worth  20,000  minas,  so  thin  that  his  brother-priests  forbade  its  use  (Yoma,  f. 
35  /'). 


APrENDIX.  705 

had_rcached  the  wilderness;  the  reading  and  reciting  by- 
memory  as  he  sat  in  the  Court  of  the  Women  in  his  priestly 
robes;  the  tying  of  the  scarlet  cloth  round  the  goat's  horns;' 
the  washing  of  hands  and  feet  in  golden  bowls;  and  the  mul- 
titude of  the  details  to  which  the  nation  clung  with  fond  devo- 
tion as  representing  the  culminating  splendour  of  the  ritual 
with  which  they  connected  all  their  hopes  of  forgiveness. 

It  may  be  said  that  even  now  the  impression  of  this  high- 
priestly  splendour  on  the  great  day  (Yoma)  is  not  exhausted. 
In  the  festival  prayers  still  read  for  that  day  we  read — 

"  Even  as  the  expanded  canopy  of  heaven  was  the  countenance  of  the 
Priest." 

"  As  the  splendour  vi-hich  proceedeth  from  the  effulgence  of  Angels  was  the 
countenance  of  the  Priest." 

He  is  compared  to  "the  appearance  of  the  bow  in  the 
midst  of  the  clouds;"  to  "a  rose  in  the  midst  of  a  garden;" 
to  "a  garden  of  roses  in  the  midst  of  thorns-;"  to  "a  star;" 
to  "the  golden  bells  in  the  skirts  of  the  mantle;"  to  "the 
sunrise;"  to  "the  congregation  covered  with  blue  and  purple;" 
and  to  "the  likeness  of  Orion  and  the  Pleiades."" 


EXCURSUS    XIV. 

THE  IDENTITY  OF  "JOHN  THE  PRESBYTER  "  WITH  "  JOHN 
THE  APOSTLE." 

The  majority  of  those  who  have  questioned  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Apocalypse  have  assigned  it  to  a  supposed  younger 
contemporary  of  the  Apostle,  who,  they  say,  was  known  in 
the  early  Church  as  "John  the  Presbyter. "  If  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  very  existence  of  "John  the  Presbyter'^is  in  the  high- 
est degree  problematical,  great  additional  force  will  be  given 
to  the  already  strong  proofs  that  the  Apocalypse,  the  Gospel, 
and  the  Epistles  are  indeed  the  work  of  the  Evangelist  St. 
John.  In  recent  times  the  supposed  existence  of  this  "nebu- 
lous Presbyter"  has  been  made  an  excuse  for  denying  alto- 
gether the  work  and  the  residence  of  St.  John  in  Asia.^ 

1  Yoma,  f.  66  3.  ^  See  Hershon,  Treasures  of  the  Tnlviud^  p.  200. 

8  Vogel,  Der  Eiian^.  yohnnnes,  1800.  Liitzelberger,  Die  hirchl.  Tradition  iilwr  d.  A/>. 
Johannes,  1840.  Keini,  Gesch.  Jcsu  von  Nazara,\Q\.  i.,  p.  160,  ff.  Scholten,  Der  A/>. 
yo/ia?i.  in  Klein-Azi'e,  1871.  Holtzin.inn,  Fph.  und  Kolosscr-brie/e,  1872.  On  tlic  other 
side  see  W.  Orimm,  Johnnties,  in  ICrsch  ^nd  Griiber.  Haur,  Gesch.  d.  christl.  /\.'irche,  vol. 
i.,  pp.  82-147,  etc.  Krenkel.  Der  Apost.  Johmines,  pp.  133-178.  Str.niiss,  Sclnvegler,  Zel- 
ler,  Hilgenfeld,  even  Volkni.ir,  zkW  reject  the  new  theory.  Renan  {[.''Antichrist,  pp.  557-589) 
only  thinks  that  Scholten  has  succeeded  in  releguting  the  faclb  to  a  sort  of  penumbra. 

45 


706  THE    EARLY   DAVS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

I  have  long  doubted  whether  there  ever  was  such  a  person 
as  this  "John  the  Presbyter,"  and  I  had  arrived  at  this  con- 
clusion, and  arranged  my  reasons  for  holding  it,  before  I  saw 
the  paper  of  Prof.  Milligan  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Litera- 
ture for  October,  1868.'  The  papers  of  Riggenbach  {/a/irb. 
fiir  deutschc  Theologie,  vol.  xiii.  p.  319),  and  of  Zahn  in  the 
Studien  uiui  Kritiken  for  1866,  I  have  not  yet  seen,  nor  Zahn's 
Acta  Johatinis  (i88o).'^  I  have  purposely  abstained  from  con- 
sulting them  in  order  that  I  might  state  my  argument  in  my 
own  way  and  as  it  occurred  to  myself.  It  will  have  been  use- 
ful if  it  helps  in  ever  so  small  a  degree  to  get  rid  of  "a  shadow 
which  has  been  mistaken  for  a  reality,"  "a sort  of  Sosiaof  the 
Apostle,  who  troubles  like  a  spectre  the  whole  history  of  the 
Church  of  Ephesus."' 

The  question  of  the  separate  existence  of  a  "John  the 
Presbyter"  turns  mainly  upon  the  meaning  of  a  passage  of 
Papias,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  and  upon  the  criticism  of  that 
passage  by  Eusebius  himself. 

Let  us  first  see  the  passage  of  Papias. 

In  his  Exposition  of  Oracles  of  the  Lord  (KvplukCjv  €^rJyr;o-t<j) 
Papias  had  assigned  to  himself  the  task  of  preserving  w^ith 
his  best  diligence  and  accuracy,  and  of  interweaving  in  his 
five  books,  the  apostolic  traditions  which  were  still  attainable. 

"/  s/iall  not  scruple,'"  he  says,  '' to  place  side  by  side  with  jfiy 
interpretations  all  the  thi?igs  that  I  ever  rightly  lear?ted  from  the 
Elders  and  rightly  remembered,  solemnly  ajfirjning  their  truth- 
fulness ^  Then,  after  telling  us  that,  unlike  most  men,  he 
was  indifferent  to  idle  gossip  and  secondhand  information, 
and  sought  for  direct  evidence  as  to  the  words  of  Christ,  he 
adds:  "/;///  //  at  any  time  any  one  came  ivho  had  been  acquainted 
with  the  Eldei^,  I  used  to  enquire  about  the  discourses  of  the 
Elders  —  whar  Afidrew  or  ivhat  Peter  said  (etTrci/),  or  what 
lliomas  or  James,  or  7vhat  John  or  Matthew,  or  any  one  of  the 
disciples  of  the  Lord;  and  what  Aristion  and  John  the  Elder ^ 
the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say  {Xiyovai).  Eor  L  thought  that  tht 
information  derived f7'om  books  would  not  be  so  profitable  to  me 
as  that  derived  from  a  living  and  abiding  utter  a)ice.''^ 

\  [.  ^l^^''  f''"'"  ^'''of-  Milligan  in  his  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  Papias. 

4  A  r''"''""'''^  '°  ^^""ilinS  ill's  paper  I  have  read  Zahr.  3  Renan,  IS A?itechrist,  p.  xxiii. 
As  the  cuicstlon  turns  on  the  meaning  of  tliis  passage.  I  api)eiid  the  Greek,  ovk  o/ci'i'jaa) 
«<  «T0i  itai  o(7a  wore  Trapi  Tta)>' n-pc(T/3uT£>an' KoAws  i[x.aQov  Ka\.  Ka\Co<;  e/ui'Tj/aorevo-a  avyKard^JiL 
Tat?  tpiir}ftiai<:  6ia8fftaiovneio<;  u-jep  ai/Twi/  iArj&eiai'.  Ei  &e  ttow  kox  7rapa(coAou(^TjKuJS  7is 
Toi?  nptativripoK:  (A0OL  roy?  noi-  Trpea/Sureptor  ai'eVcpiioi'  \6yov<;-  tL  'ArSpe'as  ij  ri  UiTpo<;  eiTrec 
2  Tt  ^lAiTTTO?  >j  Ti  'Iwol^Kij?  i)  Mc.T0otO9,  if  Ti?  Twi/  Kvpiov  fxaOrtTiiiv,  are  'Apia-riujy  Kal  b  Trpecr- 
puTtpo?  liuayyr)<:  oi  toD  Kvpiov  /xaflrjrai  Xtyovaiv.  Ov  yap  to.  (k  tiov  j3i/3At(o»'  toctovtov  /a* 
Mt^t\tiv  uirtAd^^oioi',  iio-Of  ra  Trapi  ^uiaTjs  <i>wi>js  (cat  utroi/ffJjs.  — Panlas.  ///>.  Euscb.  H.  K. 


APPENDIX.  707 

The  general  meaning;  of  this  passage  is  clear.  The  good 
Bishop  of  HierapoHs  tells  us  that  he  wished,  in  setting  forth 
his  "interpretations,"  to  derive  all  the  information  he  could 
from  the  fountain  head.  We  learn  from  St.  Luke  himself  that, 
before  he  wrote  his  Gospel,  many  had  already  attempted  to 
perform  a  similar  task,  and  the  Evangelist  evidently  implies 
that  he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  majority  of  these  efforts.  It 
is  a  fair  inference  from  the  expressions  which  he  uses  that 
some  of  these  narratives  were  founded  on  insufficient  knowl- 
edge, and  were  lacking  in  carefulness.  It  is  possible  that 
these  tentative  sketches  of  the  Gospel  narrative — all  of  which 
have  now  perished — admitted  apocryphal  particulars  or  nar- 
rated true  circumstances  with  erroneous  details.  Such  docu- 
ments would  be  sure  to  contain  some  contradictions,  and 
would  create  much  uncertainty  in  the  minds  of  Christians. 
The  Four  Gospels  were  written  in  fulfilment  of  an  imperative 
need.  Now  if  imperfect  or  unauthorised  works,  such  as  the 
sketches  to  which  St.  Luke  alludes,  had  come  under  the 
notice  of  Papias,  he  would  naturally  regard  them  with  sus- 
picion, and  would  feel  that  their  uncertainties  discredited  their 
authority.  He  was  indeed  acquainted  with  the  Gospels  of  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  and  perhaps,  though  I  do  not  think 
that  this  can  be  regarded  as  certain,  with  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John.'  But  stories  were  floating  about,  such,  for  instance,  as 
that  respecting  the  death  of  Judas  Iscariot,  and  that  about 
"a  woman  accused  before  our  Lord  of  many  sins,"  which 
diverged  more  or  less  from  the  accounts  in  the  Gospels. 
Papias  felt  that  he  would  be  rendering  a  service  to  the  Church 
if  he  collected  from  eye-witnesses  all  \\\q  authentic  information 
which  could  still  be  gathered  *as  to  facts.  It  was  even  more 
important  to  him  and  to  the  Church  to  learn  the  accurate 
truth  about  asserted  doctrines.  If  ''the  books"  to  which  he 
refers  included,  as  Bishop  Lightfoot  has  conjectured,"  some 
of  the  mystic  heresies  and  absurdities  of  the  early  Gnostics, 
they  fully  deserved  the  tone  of  depreciation  in  which  he  speaks 
of  them.  He  was  acting  wisely  in  endeavouring  to  bring  to 
a  focus  the  last  glimmerings  of  direct  Apostolic  tradition. 

It  seems  then  that  he  had  long  been  in  the  habit — perhaps 
ever  since  his  early  youth — of  gleaning  from  every  available 
source  the  testimony  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.     His  book  was 

'  Eusebiiis  does  not  quote  any  allusion  of  Papias  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  but  in  an  argu- 
ment prefixed  to  a  Vatican]  MS.  of  the  ninth  century,  we  are  told  that  he  testified  to  its 
genuineness  ;  and  a  quotation  from  **  tlie  Elders,"'  in  Irenajus,  may  be  derived  from  Papias. 
Westcott,  Oh  the  Ca?ijn,  p.  77.     It  mu-i  lie  admitted  that  tliis  evidence  is  somewhat  shadowy. 

2  Contemporary  Revieiv,  August,' 1867,  and  August,  1875. 


708  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

probably  written  after  the  last  Apostle  was  dead,  and  he  con- 
sidered that  it  owed  much  of  its  importance  to  the  old  tradi- 
tions which  he  had  gathered  while  it  w'as  yet  possible  to  do  so. 
In  the  passage  which  I  have  quoted  he  is  not  speaking  of 
jiresent  times,  but  is  referring  to  what  he  used  to  do  in  the 
days  of  his  youth  and  early  manhood. 

'  Now  certainly  if  Papias  had  been  a  careful  modern  writer 
we  should  have  inferred  from  this  passage  that  the  John  men- 
tioned in  the  first  clause  was  a  different  person  from  the  John 
mentioned  in  the  second.  In  the  first,  he  says,  that  it  had  been 
his  habit  to  enquire  from  any  who  had  known  "the  Elders" — 
of  whom  he  especially  mentions  seven  Apostles — what  these 
"Elders"  said;  and  also  "what  Aristion  and  John  the  Elder, 
the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say.'' 

But  although  this  would  be  the  natural  inference,  it  is  by 
no  means  the  certain  inference.  The  antithesis  may  be  be- 
tween the  past  and  present  tense  ("said"  and  "say"),  and 
not  between  two  sources  of  original  information.  There  is 
nothing  to  forbid  the  explanation  that  when  Papias  met  any 
one  who  had  known  the  immediate  Apostles  and  disciples  of 
the  Lord — St.  John  among  them — he  made  notes  of  what  (ac- 
cording to  his  informant)  these  Elders  said;  but  in  wTiting 
this  clause  he  remembers  that,  at  the  time  when  he  was  making 
his  notes,  two  of  the  immediate  disciples  of  the  Lord  were 
not  dead  but  living;  namely,  Aristion — to  whom,  since  he  was 
not  an  Apostle,  he  does  not  give  the  direct  title  of  "Elder" — 
and  John,  wiiom  he  identifies  with  those  whom  he  has  men- 
tioned in  the  first  clause  by  calling  him,  as  he  had  called  them, 
"the  Elder." 

Certainly  such  a  way  of  expressing  himself  would  show 
that  Papias  was  a  man  who  wrote  in  a  very  simple  and  loose 
style;  but  this  is  exactly  what  we  know  to  have  been  the  case. 
It  is  true  that,  in  one  place,  if  the  clause  be  genuine,  Eusebius 
calls  him  "a  man  in  all  respects  of  the  greatest  erudition  and 
well  acquainted  with  Scripture."'  But  the  genuineness  of 
this  eulogistic  clause  is  very  uncertain,  since  it  is  omitted  in 
several  manuscripts,  as  well  as  by  Rufinus,  and  (which  is  im- 
portant) in  an  ancient  Syriac  Version.  Three  chapters  further 
on  Eusebius  tells  us  that  Papias  was  "a  man  of  exceedingly- 
small  intelligence,  as  one  may  infer  from  his  own  writings."^ 
Such  a  man  might  easily  write  in  a  confused  style.  One  at 
least  of  the  passages  which  Eusebius  quotes  from  the  Exposi- 

'  ai-rjp  TO  TTai'Ta  OTt  fxaAicrra  AoyiciraTO?.      Kiiscb.  //.  K.  iii.  36. 

'^  a<t>6Spa  (TfiiKpoi  wr  rot-  roOf  ws  ay  Ik  tuu  avToi  koyiav  TCK/u.})pafxe>'Of  etjreci/.     Id.  iii.  39. 


APPENDIX.  709 

Hon  bears  out  his  unfavourable  opinion  of  the  ancient  bishop's 
abiUty.  Nor  are  we  left  to  form  our  judgment  of  his  style 
solely  on  the  opinion  of  Eusebius.  Another  of  the  passages 
which  the  historian  quotes  from  Papias  (and  to  which  I  have 
referred  further  on)  is  equally  wanting  in  precision,  and  is 
therefore  susceptible  of  more  than  one  interpretation. 

I.  Now,  first  of  all,  no  difficulty  can  arise  as  to  the  title 
given  to  St.  John.  Papias  calls  all  the  other  Apostles  "the 
Elders,"  and  it  is  only  natural  to  assume  that  he  gives  the 
same. title  to  St.  John  in  the  same  sense.  The  word  "Elder," 
like  the  word  "Apostle,"  had  two  different  senses.  In  its 
ordinary  sense  it  was  applicable  to  many  hundreds  of  persons, 
for  it  meant  any  Christian  who  was  member  of  a  Presbytery. 
But  it  had  a  special  sense,  in  which  it  meant  one  who  belonged 
to  the  earliest  generation  of  Christians.  In  this  sense  it  is 
constantly  used  by  Irenasus,  and  is  applied  to  Papias  himself, 
though  he  was  not  a  Presbyter  but  a  Bishop  of  Hierapolis, 
and  though  by  the  time  of  Irengeus  the  distinction  between 
"Bishop"  and  "Presbyter,"  which  is  not  found  in  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament,  had  been  gradually  introduced.  If 
the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  St.  John  be,  as  the  Church 
has  generally  inferred,  by  the  same  author  as  the  First,  the 
case  is  strengthened  for  identifying  "John  the  Elder"  with 
"John  the  Apostle,"  for  in  both  those  Epistles  St.  John  gives 
himself  this  very  title.  That  it  was  in  no  sense  inappropriate 
may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  St.  Peter,  in  addressing  Elders, 
calls  himself  their  "fellow  Elder. "^  Besides  this,  when  used 
with  the  definite  article,  it  would  be  a  title  of  great  signifi- 
cance, and  yet  would  accord  with  the  modesty  and  reticence 
which  were  habitual  with  St.  John.  There  was  no  need  for 
the  last  survivor  of  the  Apostles  to  give  himself  the  title  of 
"Apostle,"  to  which,  in  its  loftiest  sense,  all  men  knew  that 
he  had  an  undisputed  claim.  He  did  not  wish  to  assert  his 
own  immense  authority.  But  in  calling  himself  "the  Elder" 
he  used  a  term  doubly  impressive.  He  implies  that  he  was 
an  Elder  in  a  peculiar  sense,  both  because  he  was  entitled 
from  his  great  age  to  respect  and  reverence,  and  also  because 
he  was  raised  above  the  rest  of  Elders  by  the  dignity  of  his 
position  as  the  last  of  the  Twelve,  and  the  last  of  those  who 
could  say  'T  have  seen  the  Lord."  So  far,  then,  we  see  that, 
whether  they  were  the  same  person  or  not,  the  John  in  the 
first  clause  and  the  John  in  the  second  are  each  cliaracterised 


1  I  Pet.  V.  I. 


710  11  IK    EAKLV    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITV. 

by  two  identical  titles.  Each  is  called  an  "Elder,."  and  each 
is  called  "a  disciple  of  the  Lord."  Surely  if  Papias  had 
wished  to  describe  two  different  persons  he  would  have  given 
some  separate  and  distinctive  title  to  the  second  and  inferior 
John.  It  is  a  reasonable  inference  that  Papias  is  only  men- 
tioning the  same  person  twice  over  in  an  intelligible,  though 
loose  and  inartistic  way,  to  distinguish  between  reports  of  his 
sayings  which  were  brought  to  him  when  St.  John  was  yet 
living  and  after  he  was  dead. 

But,  besides  this,  I  am  far  from  sure  that  the  sentence  is 
not  loosely  constructed  in  another  sense.  By  the  figure  of 
speech  called  zeugma,  or  rather,  syllepsis,  the  same  word, 
even  in  the  most  classical  writers  and  in  all  languages,  is  often 
made  to  serve  two  purposes  in  the  same  sentence.  •  A  verb  is 
often  used  with  two  clauses  which  is  only  appropriate  to  one 
of  them,  as  in  Pope's  line — 

"  See  Pan  with  flocks,  with  fruits  Pomona  crowned," 

where  from  the  participle  "crowned"  we  must  understand  the 
word  "surrounded"  to  suit  the  first  half  of  the  line.  In  other 
instances  we  are  compelled  by  the  sense  to  borirow  from  one 
verb  another  which  may  be  even  opposite  in  meaning,  as  in 
St.  Paul's — 

"Forbidding  to  marry,  [commanding]  to  abstain  from  meats," 
where  from  kcoXuovtwv  (forbidding)  we  must  understand  kcXc- 
vovTOiv  (commanding)  to  suit  the  second  clause.^  It  is  then 
perfectly  legitimate  to  understand  Papias  to  mean  that  he  m^d 
to  enquire  what  Peter,  John,  etc.,  said^  and  when  opportunity 
occurred  used  to  make  personal  notes  of  what  Aristion  and  John 
say.''  What  he  derived  from  St.  John  would,  if  such  were  his 
meaning,  have  been  of  two  descriptions,  namely,  (i)  Reports 
of  his  conversations  from  others,  and  (2)  Actual  notes  of  his 
living  testimony  taken  down  in  intercourse  with  the  Apostle 
himself  when  Papias  was  young.  And  that  Eusebius  is  not 
guilty  of  mere  carelessness  in  interpreting  him  to  mean  that 
he  actually  heard  "John  the  Elder"  is,  I  think,  shown  by  the 
words  Which  follow,  in  which  Papias,  thinking  mainly  of  his 
last  clause,  ^speaks  of  the  importance  of  the  "living  and  abi- 
ding voice."  Indeed,  he  says  in  his  opening  sentence  that 
some  of  his  notes  were   derived  from  immediate  intercourse 

"  n-if'"^'  '^'  ^'  ^^'^P'  y*^*  ^Z^"'  cTTOTio-a  ov  /SpwjLto,  i  Cor.  iii    2. 

•  Ihts  IS  called  zeufpna  ;  in  syllepsis  the  same  word  is  taken  in  two  diffcnnt  senses. 
Ai-oitpa-w  means  "  I  examine,"  •'sift,"  or  "  question." 


APPENDIX.  711 

with  some  of  these  "Elders"  as  well  as  (el  8e  koI  K.r.y.)  from 
trustworthy  reports  of  what  they  had  said  to  others. 

There  are,  then,  two  strong  arguments  for  construing  the 
sentences  of  Papias  as  I  have  here  proposed.  They  are  all 
the  stronger  because  they  are  both  derived  from  Eusebius 
himself,  though  he  may  be  called  the  original  inventor  of  the 
theory  about  "John  the  Presbyter.'" 

(i.)  One  of  these  arguments  is  that  Eusebius  so  construed 
the  sentence.  He  indeed  makes  "John  the  Elder"  of  the 
first  clause  a  different  person  from  the  "John  the  Elder"  of 
the  second  clause;  but  he  paraphrases  the  sentence  thus: 
"Papias  testifies  that  he  had  received  the  sayings  of  the  Apos- 
tles from  those  who  had  been  acquainted  with  them,  but  says 
that  he  had  been  himself  a  hearer  of  Arislw?i  and  of  John  the 
Elder.'"  He  has  been  accused  of  error  and  carelessness  in 
thus  understanding  the  sentence,  but  I  think  that  I  have 
shown  his  construction  of  it  to  be,  so  far,  perfectly  justifiable. 

(2.)  The  other  argument  is  that  Eusebius,  in  an  earlier 
book,  the  Chronicon^  says  without  any  hesitation,  that  Papias 
was  a  hearer  of  St.  John  the  Apostle.'  Now,  that  this  was  the 
truer  and  more  unbiassed  conclusion,  seems  clear  on  other 
grounds.  I  shall  show  later  on  that  "the  Elder"  is  quoted 
for  statements  which  could  hardly  have  come  from  any  but  an 
Apostle.  And  besides  the  ancient  and  frequent /£\f////'/6';/j)' that 
Papias  had  seen  and  conversed  with  St.  John  the  Apostle,  it 
would  be  inconceivable  a  priori  that  one  who  was  searching 
for  first  hand  and  authentic  testimony  should  never  have  taken 
the  trouble  to  go  from  Hierapolis  to  Ephesus  to  consult  an 
Apostle  of  the  highest  authority,  who  was  then  living  at  Ephe- 
sus as  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  Asiatic  Church. 

The  argument,  therefore,  that  Eusebius  was  more  likely 
than  we  are  to  have  known  whether  there  was  or  was  not  a 
*'J<^hn  the  Presbyter,"  and  whether  Papias  was  his  hearer  or 
the  hearer  of  St.  John  the  Apostle,  because  Eusebius  pos- 
sessed all  the  writings  of  Papias,  and  we  do  not,  falls  signally 
to  the  ground.  Indeed,  it  tells  the  other  way.  In  his  His- 
tory he  reasons  himself  into  the  belief  Xh^t  Papias  was  only  the 
pupil  of  "the  Presbyter;"  but  he  had  all  the  writings  of 
Papias  in  his  hand  when  he  wrote  the  Chronicon.,  and  there 
he  says,  without  any  hesitation,  that  Papias  was  a  pupil  of  the 

1  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  had  given  a  liinid  hint  that  tliere  mi^ht  have  been  such  a  per- 
son, but  Kusebiiis,  by  a  bold  criiicisni,  assumes  that  there  was. 

'  So,  too,  Iren.  c.  llaer.  v.  33.  '\^aa.vvQv  [ikv  d(covc7T»j?,  noAv/capirou  6e  eTaipos  -yeyofw?. 
It  is  monstrous  to  suppose  that  Irensus  would  use  the  simple  word  "  John  "  if  he  only  meant 
the  Presbyter. 


712  Tin-:    EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Apostle.  "John  the  Presbyter"  is  the  creature  of  Eusebius's 
later  criticism.  If  he  could  have  quoted  from  Papias  a  single 
other  passage  which  in  any  way  countenanced  his  existence, 
there  would  have  been  no  need  to  base  his  existence  upon  a 
mere  conjecture. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  belief  that  Papias  really  had  seen 
and  heard  the  Apostle  St.  John,  rests  not  upon  conjecture, 
but  upon  the  distinct  testimony  of  Irenseus,  who  says  that 
Papias  was  *  'a  hearer  of  John,  and  an  associate  (iroLpos)  of 
Polycarp.'"  Justin  Martyr  lays  the  scene  of  his  dialogue  with 
Trypho  in  Ephesus;  and  he  quotes  the  Apocalypse  as  the  work 
of  the  Apostle.''  That  the  John  intended  is  the  Apostle — the 
only  John  of  whom  Irenceus  knew  anything — is  sufficiently 
clear,  because  Irenaeus,  in  his  letters  to  Victor  and  to  Florinus, 
distinctly  says  so.^  Apollonius,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  says  that 
the  Apostle  lived  at  Ephesus,  and  wrote  the  Apocalypse.* 
Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  must  have  held  the  same  opinion,  as 
is  clear  from  the  silence  of  Eusebius.^  Apollinarius,  who  suc- 
ceeded Papias  as  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  a.d.  170,  and  was 
therefore  specially  likely  to  be  well  informed,  must  have 
known  that  both  Polycarp  and  Papias  were  hearers  of  the 
Apostle.*^  Jerome,  in  his  Z>e  Vi'ri's  Illitstribus^  says  the  same.' 
Till  very  recent  times  no  one  ever  breathed  a  doubt  that/^<?A'- 
carp  had  been  a  hearer  of  the  Apostle,  and  had  by  him  been 
appointed  Bishop  of  Smyrna.®  If,  then,  Polycarp  w^as  a  hearer 
of  the  Apostle,  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the  tes- 
timony that  Papias,  who  was  a  friend  and  contemporary  of 
Polycarp,  had  enjoyed  the  same  peculiar  privilege. 

II.  But  now  let  us  examine  more  closely  the  criticism  of 
Eusebius^  upon  the  passage  of  Papias.  He  says  '  'that  Papias 
mentions  the  name  of  John  twice,  and  in  the  first  clause  places 
him  with  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  clearly  indicating 
the  Evangelist;  but  that  in  the  second  clause  he  ranks  him 
with  others  who  were  not  Apostles,  placing  Aristion  before 
him,  and  he  distinctly  calls  him  'an  Elder;'  so  that  even  in 
this  way  he  indicates  the  truth  of  the  statements  of  those  who 
have  said  that  there  were  two  who  had  the  same  name  in  Asia, 
and  that  there  were  two  tombs  in  Ephesus,  and  that  each  is 
still  called  *  a  tomb  of  John.'     We  ought  to  attend  to  these 

>  Iren  c.  Hner.  v.  33.  So  too  fEcumenius,  on  Acts  ii.  :  Nicephorus,  //.  E.  iii.  20  ;  and 
Anastasius  Sinaita  {flexnetn.  vii.),  who  calls  him  a  pupil  of  the  "  bosom-disciple"  (6  kinarq- 
»uk).     Sec  Routh,  /\tl.  Sncr.  i.  15.  2  just.  M.  Dial.  81. 

»  Ircn.  c.  Haer.  iii.  i,  §  i,  and  afi.  Euseb.  H,  R.  v.  20-24. 

*  .'//.  iMjycb.  //.  E.  V.  18.  «  See  Jer.  De  J  i'rr.  Illustr,  24. 

•  Af>.  iMiiicb.  //.  E.  iv.  37 ;  v.  19 :  Jcr.  De  Virr.  Uluxtr.  26. 

^  Jcr.  /.  c.  c.  xviii.  i«  'fort.  De  Praescr.  Haer,  v.  30.  »  //,  E,  iii.  39. 


APPENDIX.  713 

facts,  for  it  is  probable  that  it  was  the  secojid  John  wlio  saw 
the  Apocalypse  which  passes  under  the  name  of  John,  unless 
any  one  luishes  to  believe  that  it  was  the  first.'' 

It  should  be  most  carefully  observed  that  Eusebi'us  does 
not  here  profess  to  know  anything  whatever  about  this  "John 
the  Elder,"  and  that  he  is  not  quite  fair  in  saying  that  Papias 
calls  him  "  an  Elder."  Papias  did  not  call  him  "  an  Elder," 
but  "  the  Elder,"  which  may  be  a  very  different  thing.  Euse- 
bius  also  fails  to  notice  that  the  "John"  of  the  second  clause 
is  described  by  exactly  the  same  two  designations  as  the  John 
of  the  first  clause,  namely,  as  one  of  the  "Elders,"  and  as  a 
"disciple  of  the  Lord."  Eusebius  is  only  led  to  infer  that 
there  was  a  John  who  was  not  the  Apostle,  (i)  by  his  criti- 
cisms of  this  single  passage;  (2)  by  the  fact  that  "some"  had 
said  so;  and  (3)  because  these  persons  stated  that  there  were 
still  two  tombs  at  Ephesus  which  were  known  by  the  name  of 
John.  And  yet,  after  all,  Eusebius  is  so  little  convinced  by 
his  own  reasoning — he  is  so  anxious  "to  steer  between  the 
Scylla  and  Charybdis  of  yes  and  no" — he  sees  that  the  evi- 
dence for  the  Apostolic  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse  is  so 
strong — that  he  is  still  obliged  to  leave  the  authorship  of  the 
book  a  matter  of  individual  opinion.  Whatever  may  be  thought 
as  to  the  ingenuity  of  his  reasoning,  Eusebius  furnishes  the 
most  complete  refutation  of  his  own  theory  by  the  inability  to 
produce  a  single  grain  of  testimony  or  even  of  tradition  in 
favour  of  the  view  that  this  separate  "Presbyter"  had  ever 
existed. 

Two  questions  then  arise: — 

a.  Why  was  Eusebius  so  anxious  to  believe  in  the  exist- 
ence of  this  "John  the  Presbyter"? 

jS.  Who  were  the  "some"  on  whose  testimony  he  relies? 

a.  The  answers  to  both  questions  are  very  easy.  Euse- 
bius disliked  the  Apocalypse.  He  seldom  quotes  it.  In  one 
passage  he  refers  to  it  as  possibly  (ct  ye  <\>avdy]]  spurious,  and  in 
another  as  possibly  [d y^  <^av^vr])  genuine,  leaving  the  decision 
very  much  to  the  reader  himself.  He  was  extrqmely  opposed 
to  the  fanatical  and  sensuous  Chiliasm,  which  derived  its  sole 
support  from  this  book;  and  on  this  very  ground  he  was  in- 
clined to  look  down  upon  the  old  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  with 
his  credulous  stories  and  Judaic  sympathies.  If  the  millen- 
nial traditions  which  Papias  had  collected  in  his  Expositions 
could  be  dissociated  from  the  authority  of  the  Apostle,  and 
made  to  rest  on  that  of  an  unknown  and  sub-apostolic  person- 
age, it  would  be  more  easy  to  set  them  aside. 


714  THE   EARLY    DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

/i  As  to  the  "some"  to  whom  Eusebius  alludes,  they 
probably  reduce  themselves  to  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  just 
as  the  "some"  to  whom  Dionysius  himself  alludes  as  dispar- 
li^ing  the  Apocalypse  probably  reduce  themselves  to  the 
Alogi.  At  any  rate,  the  only  trace  of  any  conjecture  as  to  the 
existence  of  "John  the  Presbyter"  previous  to  Eusebius,  is 
in  the  famous  criticism  on  the  Apocalypse  by  Dionysius.  In 
that  criticism,  preserved  for  us  only  by  Eusebius,' the  learned 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria  says  that  it  is  clear  from  the  testimony 
of  the  book  itself  that  a  "John"  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  but 
that  instead  of  calling  himself  "the  disciple  beloved  by  the 
Lord"  (as  in  the  Gospel),  or,  "the  brother  of  James,"  or 
"one  who  has  actually  seen  and  heard  the  Lord, "  which  would 
have  clearly  indicated  his  individuality,  he  only  calls  himself 
"your  brother  and  fellow  in  affliction,"  and  "a  witness  of 
Jesus,"  and  "blessed  because  he  saw  and  heard  these  reve- 
lations." "Now  I  think,"  continues  Dionysius,  "that  there 
have  been  many  who  bore  the  same  name  as  John  the  Apos- 
tle, who  loved  that  designation  out  of  their  love  and  admiration 
and  emulation  for  him,  and  because  they  wished  to  be  loved 
of  the  Lord  as  he  was;  just  as  many  children  are  named  after 
Paul  and  Peter.  Nay,  there  is  even  another  John  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  who  bore  the  surname  of  Mark.  I  cannot 
say  whether  this  be  the  John  who  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  for 
it  is  not  recorded  that  he  went  with  them  (Barnabas  and  Paul) 
into  Asia;  but  I  think  that  it  was  some  other  John  of  those  who 
were  in  Asia,  since  some  even  say  that  there  are  two  tombs  in 
Ephesus,  each  of  which  is  called  'the  tomb  of  John.'  " 

If  the  "some"  to  whom  Eusebius  appeals,  include  any  one 
except  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  and  those  who  had  given  him 
his  information,  we  have  at  any  rate  no  clue  as  to  who  they 
were.  Had  they  been  persons  of  special  authority,  or  with 
special  opportunities  of  knowing  the  facts,  Eusebius  would 
have  told  us  something  about  them.  And  what  does  the  evi- 
dence furnished  by  Dionysius  amount  to?  Not  (be  it  ob- 
served; to  the  statement  that  there  7vere  i7vo  Johns,  but  only 
that  John  was  a  common  name,  and  that  there  were  two  tombs 
in  Ephesus,  each  of  which  was  pointed  out  by  the  local  cice- 
roni as  a  tomb  of  John!  He  does  not  even  pretend  to  imply 
that  they  were  the  tombs  of  tivo  Johns.  On  the  contrary, 
each  was  asserted  to  be  the  tomb  of  the  Apostle. 

III.  Could  any  reader  of  modern  German  criticisms  believe 


'  //.  E.  vii. 


APPENDIX.  715 

that  beyond  this  we  know  absolutely  nothing  about  John  the 
Presbyter,  as  distinct  'from  John  the  Apostle?'  And  how 
utterly  baseless  a  foundation  is  this  for  such  a  superstructure! 
Dionysius  wrote  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,'^  when 
John  had  been  laid  in  his  grave  for  at  least  a  century  and  a 
iialf.  There  is  no  tradition  worth  the  name  as  to  the  place 
and  manner  of  the  Apostle's  death,  and  in  the  absence  of 
authentic  information,  it  was  believed  or  assumed  that  he 
died  at  Ephesus,  Since  this  was  the  common  belief,  it  was 
quite  natural  that  the  Christians  who  visited  Ephesus  should 
ask  to  be  shown  the  grave  of  John/  Now  the  duplicate  sites 
of  many  other  "holy  places"  in  Palestine  and  elsewhere  show 
that  if,  in  a  case  where  there  was  no  certainty,  one  supposed 
grave  was  pointed  out,  it  was  a  very  likely  result  that  there 
would  be  hvo.  The  two  graves  were  merely  rival  sites  for  a 
spot  which,  if  either  of  them  were  genuine,  would  be  full  of  in- 
terest. Yet,  on  grounds  so  slight  as  these,  Dionysius — who, 
though  he  speaks  reverently  of  the  Apocalypse,  could  not 
persuade  himself  that  it  was  the  work  of  the  Apostle — first  in- 
fers that  there  were  two  Johns;  and,  secondly,  that  one  of 
them  may  have  been  sufficiently  famous  to  be  the  author  of 
the  Revelation. 

That  Dionysius  is  merely  clutching  at  a  theory  is  proved 
by  his  half  suggestion  that  the  author  may  have  been  John 
Mark  the  Evangelist;  a  suggestion  in  which,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  he  has  had  scarcely  a  single  follower  for  1,500  years.* 

But,  further  than  this,  his  suggestion  proves  a  great  deal 
more  than  he  intended  by  it.  This  second  John,  if  he  existed 
at  all,  must  have  been  an  exile  in  Patmos,  and  a  person  of 
such  immense  and  acknowledged  influence  as  to  be  able  to 
address  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  with  almost  more  than 
Apostolic  authority.  But,  as  we  can  now  prove,  the  Apo- 
calypse was  written  about  a.d.  68;  and  if  John  the  Presbyter 
at  that  time  exercised  so  powerful  a  sway  over  Asia,  then 
there  is  little  or  no  room  left  for  the  work  of  John  the  Apos- 
tle. Polycrates,  Bishop  of  Ephesus  (a.d.  196},  spoke  of  John 
the  Apostle  and  Philip^  as  the  two  great  lights  of  Asia;**  but  if 

'  No  importance  can  be  attached  by  any  one  to  the  guess  or  invention  of  the  Apostolical 
ConstituiioHs  (vii.  46),  that  the  Presbyter  succeeded  the  Apostle  as  Bishop  of  Ephesus. 

"  He  suc;ceded  to  the  Presidency  of  the  Catechetical  School  at  Alexandria  in  a.d.  231. 

^  Similarly  the  "trophies"  of  Peter  and  Paul  were  pointed  out  At  Rome  as  early  as  the 
days  of  the  Presbyter  Gaius  (a.d.  213). 

■•  The  only  exceptions  are  Beza  and  Hitzig.  Beza,  Prolcgom.  in  Apoc.  p.  744.  "  Quod 
si  quid  aliud  liceret  ex  stylo  coiijicere,  nemini  certe  potius  quatn  Marco  tribuerim.  qui  et  ipse 
Joannes  dictus  est"  (Liicke,  Kinleit.  in  d.  Offe?ibar.  p.  780).  Hitzig,  Ueber  yoh.  Mnrkus, 
1843.  •'■'  The  Aposde,  not  the  De.Tc.u  (Kuseb.  H.  E.  iii.  39), 

'■  Polyn-   -7/.  F,:;r;-h.  //.  K  iii.  31  ;   v.  24.      See  Routh,  Rei.  Sncr.  p.  369. 


y\6  THE   EARLY   DAYS   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Tohii  the  Presbyter  is  the  exile  of  Patmos  and  the  author  of 
the  Second  and  Third  Epistles,  he  must  have  been,  on  the 
evidence  of  these  writings,  a  "light  of  Asia"  whose  splendour 
was  much  more  powerful  than  that  of  Philip,  and  so  bright  as 
to  make  the  name  even  of  the  Apostle  grow  somewhat  pale. 

If  the  Presbyter  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  a  large  part  of  the 
evidence  for  the  Asiatic  residence  of  St.  John  falls  to  the 
ground.  This  is  the  actual  result  arrived  at  by  Scholten,  Lip- 
sius,  Kcim,  and  other  Dutch  and  German  theologians,  who 
fall  back  on  an  unauthorized  and  dubious  quotation  from  Pap- 
ias  by  Georgius  Hamartolos,  to  the  effect  that  John  the  Apos- 
tle was  martyred  by  the  Jews.  Dionysius  shows  no  trace  of 
such  wild  conclusions,  though  they  would  naturally  spring 
from  his  own  conjecture;  and,  as  for  Georgius  Hamartolos, 
we  have  the  less  scruple  in  setting  aside  his  supposed  quota- 
tion, because  none  of  his  predecessors  for  eight  centuries 
know  anything  about  it,  and  because  in  the  very  same  sen- 
tence he  has  flagrantly  mis-stated  the  known  opinion  of  Ori- 
gen.' 

IV.  Keim  dwells  much  on  the  fact  that  little  or  no  mention 
is  made  of  the  Asiatic  work  of  St.  John  till  the  close  of  the 
second  century.  It  is  not  mentioned,  he  says,  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  nor  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  nor  in  Polycarp's 
letter  to  the  Philippians,  nor  in  the  letter  of  the  Churches  of 
Lyons  and  Vienne.  The  answer  to  this  difficulty,  if  it  be  one, 
is  twofold.  It  is  that,  in  the  first  place,  there  was  no  special 
reason  why  it  should  have  been  mentioned  in  any  one  of  these 
documents;  and  that,  in  the  second  place,  the  "argument 
from  silence"  is  always  a  most  lintrustworthy  way  of  attempt- 
ing to  throw  doubts  on  facts  for  which  there  is  positive  evi- 
dence. Are  we  to  doubt  the  existence  of  Milton  or  of  Jeremy 
Taylor — of  Bacon  or  of  Shakespeare — because  these  contem- 
poraries make  no  allusion  to  each  other  in  their  voluminous 
writings?  Humboldt  points  out  that  in  the  archives  of  Barce- 
lona there  is  no  trace  of  an  event  so  important  as  the  trium- 
phal entry  of  Columbus;  in  Marco  Polo's  travels  no  mention 
of  the  wall  of  China;  in  the  archives  of  Portugal  no  allusion 
to  the  travels  of  Amerigo  Vespucci.^  Michelet,  in  his  His- 
tory of  France,  states  that  the  two  chief  historians  of  the  Sici- 
lian Vespers  make  no  mention  whatever  of  Procida,  though 


'  Ocorgius  Hamartolos  not  only  quotes  Papias  for  the  assertion  that  St.  John  had  been 
martyred  hy  the  Jews,  but  says  that  Origeu  thought  so  too,  which  is  the  reverse  of  the  fact 
(Drig.  in  Matt.). 

'  Cesch.  d.  Ceo^r.,  vol.  iv.  p.  160. 


APPENDIX.  717 

he  was  undoubtedly  the  chief  mover  in  that  terrible  event.' 
The  (irginnc/itum  ex  silcntio  may  be  set  aside  as  wholly  unim- 
portant. Moreover,  in  this  instance  it  is  singularly  inappro- 
priate, since  it  tells  with  redoubled  force  against  the  very 
existence  of  any  separate  "John the  Presbyter,"  who  is  passed 
over  in  still  profounder  silence  by  all  sources  of  information 
alike. 

It  is  quite  certain  that  such  an  hypothesis  as  the  denial  of 
John's  work  in  Asia  would  have  appeared  absurd  to  Diony- 
sius.  He  was  probably  in  possession  of  a  stronger  and  more 
detailed  traditipn  on  the  subject  than  we  are.  At  any  rate, 
he  would  not  have  listened  for  a  moment  to  the  supposition 
on  which  this  recent  theory  depends.  It  requires  us  to  believe 
that  Irenceus  (a.d.  \Zo)  actually  coiifotinded  John  the  Apostle 
with  John  the  Presbyter/  Such  a  supposition  is — I  fear  it 
must  be  said — utterly  absurd.  Irenasus  repeatedly  refers  to 
"John,"  and  "John  the  Lord's  disciple,"  and  fortunately  it 
cannot  be  asserted  that  he  is  referring  to  this  second  John, 
because  in  one  passage  he  expressly  calls  him  "John  the  dis- 
ciple of  the  Lord  who  leaned  upon  his  breast,  and  himself 
published  the  Gospel  while  living  in  Ephesus  of  Asia."^ 
There  is  in  Irenceus  no  trace  of  any  other  John;  nor  was 
there  any  such  trace  in  the  writings  of  Polycrates,  Bishop  of 
Ephesus,  or  Apollinarius,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis — two  persons 
who  were  eminently  likely  to  be  well  informed  about  the  his- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church  in  those  two  cities.  Irena^us 
tells  us  that  Polycarp  had  been  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  and 
had  alw^iys  referred  to  him  about  disputed  questions,  and 
had  felt  for  him  an  unbounded  reverence.  Now  Irenjeus  too 
was  of  Asiatic  origin,  and  knew  the  traditions  of  Ephesus. 
He  had  himself  been  a  hearer  of  Polycarp,  and  has  left  a  most 
graphic  description  of  the  manner  in  which  the  old  man  used 
to  demean  himself.  And  yet"  we  are  asked  to  believe  that 
when  he  calls  Polycarp  "  a  hearer  of  John"  he  mistook  John 
the  Apostle  for  John  the  Presbyter,  though  of  this  John  the 
Presbyter  there  is  not  so  much  as  a  tradition,  however  faint, 
until  we  come  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century;  and  no 
trace  even  then  except  a  vague  report  that  there  were  at  Ephe- 
sus two  graves  known  as  graves  of  John!  But  St.  Jerome 
furnishes  us  with  conclusive  evidence  of  the  extremely  value- 


1  Varnhagen  von  Ense,  Tag^ehiicher,  vol.  i.  p.   123.     These  two  instances  ire  quoted  by 
Krenkel,  Der  Ap.  Johnn.  p.  139. 

2  See  lien.  c.  Haer.  ii.  22,  §  5  ;  iii.  i,  §  i  ;  iii.  3,  §  4  :  v.  30,  §  i  ;  33,  §§  3,  4  :  and  <//.  Euseb. 
H.  E.  V.  24. 


;i8  Till-:    EARLY   DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

less  character  of  this  grain  of  supposed  fact  in  the  ever-widen- 
ing ocean  of  theory.  He  says  {De  Viris  Illustr.)  that 
"another  tomb  is  shown  at  Ephesus  as  the  tomb  of  John  the 
Presbyter,  although  some  think  that  they  are  both 
TOMHS  OF  John  the  Evangelist"!  Had  it  not  been  foi* 
do.ccmatic  reasons,  it  is  probable  that  no  one  would  have 
thought  anything  else. 

There  is  overwhelming  evidence  that  John  the  Apostle 
spent  many  of  his  last  years  in  Asia.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
unanimous  and  best  supported  of  Church  traditions,  and  it 
can  be  traced  in  a  continuous  sequence  from  t|pe  days  of  those 
who  were  his  contemporaries,  and  had  enjoyed  his  personal 
intercourse.  That  there  was  any  John  the  Presbyter  distinct 
from  the  Apostle,  there  is  no  evidence  whatever.  For  to  say 
that  a  second-hand  report  about  two  graves  in  Ephesus  is  any 
evidence,  is  idle.  We  should  never  have  heard  a  word  about 
these  two  graves,  or  at  any  rate,  this  is  not  the  inference 
which  would  have  been  drawn  from  them,  if  Dionysius  had 
not  disliked  to  attribute  the  Apocalypse  to  St.  John,  and  if 
Eusebius,  in  common  with  many  others,  had  not  felt  a  scarcely 
concealed  desire  to  get  rid  of  the  book  altogether.  But  if 
this  imaginary  "Presbyter"  wrote  the  Apocalypse  he  must,  on 
the  showing  of  the  book  itself,  have  been  a  very  great  man 
indeed,  and  one  whose  position  enabled  him  to  adopt  a  tone 
more  authoritative  than  was  adopted  even  by  St.  Paul.  Is 
it  conceivable  that  of  such  a  man  there  would  not  be  so  much 
as  a  single  other  trace  except  the  report  of  a  dubious  grave 
conjecturally  assigned  to  him  a  century  and  a  half  after  he 
was  dead? 

The  ancient  Fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  were  not  to  be 
misled  either  by  the  specious  suggestion  of  Dionysius,  or  by  the 
bold  assertion  of  Eusebius  more  that  seventy  years  afterwards. 
Neither  of  these  great  writers  found  any  one  to  follow  them 
in  their  theoretic  inferences  from  the  loose  clause  ofi«  Papias. 
Th-  Fathers  had  the  works  of  Papias  in  their  hands,  and  knew 
that  he  had  nowhere  disintegrated  the  individuality  of  the  one 
;'.n(l  only  "John"  whom  the  Church  would  understand  to  be 
referred  to  when  that  name  was  mentioned.  They  also  had 
m  their  hands  the  Acts  of  Leucius,  which  are  probably  the 
chief  source  of  Johannine  traditions;  and  it  is  clear  from  the 
silence  of  Eusebius  and  Dionysius  that  there  the  Presbyter 
iiad  no  existence.  Accordingly,  ApoUinarius,  Anastasius  Sin- 
aita,  Ma.ximus,  and  many  others,  go  on  repeating  that  Papias 
was  a  hearer  of  Johfi  the  Apostle,  without  so  much  as  noticing 


APPENDIX.  719 

that  there  was  an3^thino;  doubtful  in  the  passage  out  of  which 
Eusebius  has  conjured  his  shadowy  Presbyter. 

V.  But  some  will  say,  have  we  not  two  Epistles  which  pro- 
fess to  emanate  from  "John  the  Presbyter"?  Undoubtedly 
we  have,  and  this  is  one  of  the  strongest  evidences  that  "John 
the  Presbyter"  was  no  other  than  "John  the  Apostle,"  for 
as  St.  John  nowhere  claims  his  Apostolic  authority,  he  would 
least  of  all  be  likely  to  do  so  in  two  private  notes  to  otherwise 
unknown  individuals;  notes  which  do  not  contain  a  single 
item  of  importance  except  where  they  exactly  coincide  with 
the  thoughts,  and  indeed  the  actual  words,  of  the  First  Epis- 
tle; notes  which  no  separate  "John  the  Presbyter"  could 
possibly  have  written  unless  his  mind  were  an  echo  of  the 
Apostle's  as  well  as  his  name.  The  Apostle  calls  himself 
"the  Presbyter"  in  these  little  private  letters,  because  the  title 
sufficiently  indicated  his  personality  as  the  aged  Head  of  the 
Asiatic  Churches,  and  as  one  who  belonged  to  a  past  epoch. ^ 
No  other  designation  would  have  been  so  simple,  so  dignified, 
and  so  suitable.  And  most  certainly  Papias  was  not  influenced 
by  this  circumstance;  for  while  he  was  acquainted  with  the 
First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  known  of 
the  existence  of  the  Secoijj^  or  Third. 

VI.  Buttheuse  of  thisaesignation,  "the  Elder,"  is  further 
illustrated  by  Papias  himself.  He  prefaces  one  of  his  oral 
traditions  with  the  words,  "These  things  the  Elder  used  to 
say."  We  have  seen  that  he  used  the  word  "Elders"  in  its 
narrower  sense  as  synonymous  with  "Apostles."  He  meant 
by  the  term  those  who  were  the  oldest  and  most  venerated 
sources  of  tradition.  He  certainly  would  not  have  given  this 
specific  title  to  any  one  who  belonged  only  to  the  second 
generation,  and  who  would  therefore  have  been  a  contempo- 
rary of  his  own.  By  "the  Elder"  he  has  been  always  and 
rightly  understood  to  mean  John,  who,  as  the  last  survivor  of 
the  Apostolic  band,  was  "the  Elder"  Ka-r  k^oyr]v.  He  does 
not  give  this  title  even  to  Aristion,  though  he  too  was  a  living 
witness  of  facts  connected  with  the  life  and  ministry  of  Christ. 

Again,  the  remarks  ascribed  to  this  intensely  venerated 
"Elder"  are  such  as  we  can  hardly  imagine  that  any  one  short 
of  an  Apostle,  and  such  an  Apostle  as  St.  John,  would  have 
had  authority  to  make.  For  instance,  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Mark  is  universally  believed  to  have  been  written  under  the 


1  I  do  not  refer  to  the  parallel  case  of  St.  Paul  calling  himself  "  the  aged"  in  Philemon  9. 
because  the  word  7rp€<r/3uTr|s  may  there  mean  '*an  ambassador." 


yiO  THE   EARLY   DAYS    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

guidance  of  St.  Peter,  The  numerous  graphic  and  vivid 
touches  in  which  it  abounds,  as  well  as  many  other  circum- 
stances, lend  probability  to  this  tradition.  Now  w4io  is  the 
original  authority  for  this  belief?  None  other  than  "the 
Elder"  himself.  He  informs  Papias  that  "Mark  having  be- 
gyme  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  accurately  all  that  he 
(Peter)  related.'"  But,  such  being  the  case,  what  ordinary 
disciple,  even  of  the  first  generation,  would  have  ventured  to 
criticise  ex  cathedra — to  criticise  as  though  from  the  stand- 
point of  wider  and  more  intimate  knowledge — a  Gospel  which 
rested  on  the  authority  of  the  Chief  of  the  Apostles?  Surely 
there  was  no  living  man  who  would  have  ventured  to  do  this,  un- 
less he  were  one  whose  opportunities  of  information  were  greater 
even  than  those  of  St.  Peter?  Yet  "the  Elder"  does  so.  He 
informed  Papias  that  though  St.  Mark  wrote  truthfully,  to  the 
best  of  his  remembrance,  he  did  ?wt  write  the  events  of  Christ's 
life  and  teaching  in  "chronological  order"  (ou  /w-eVrot  ra^a). 
Now  this  we  should  have  thought,  apart  from  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, is  exactly  what  St.  Mark  does.  But  yet  "the  Elder"  is 
right,  because  the  Elder  is  none  other  than  the  Apostle  and 
the  Evangelist.  He  can  speak  even  of  St.  Mark  in  a  tone  of 
superiority,  as  of  one  who  "neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  fol- 
lowed Him,"  He  knew,  as  perhaps  no  other  man  knew,  that 
the  Synoptic  Evangelists  were  but  imperfectly  informed  as  to 
the  events  and  discourses  of  that  ministry  in  JiidcEa.,  as  apart 
from  Galilee,  which  it  was  his  own  special  privilege  to  make 
known  to  the  world.  Hence  he  can  even  venture  to  say  of 
St.  Peter  himself,  that  "he  used  to  frame  his  teachings  with 
reference  to  the  present  needs  of  his  hearers,  and  not  as 
making  a  connected  narrative  of  the  Lord's  discourses." 
What  mere  secondary  Presbyter  would  have  spoken  in  terms 
of  such  familiarity  and  even  equality  of  '  'the  Pilot  of  the 
Galilean  Lake"?  In  such  criticisms  do  we  not  hear  unmis- 
takably the  accents  of  an  Apostle? 

VII.  There  is,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  but  one  slight  objection 
to  the  arguments  which  I  have  here  stated.  It  is  that,  if  our 
conclusion  be  correct,  Papias  mentions  Aristion  in  the  same 
breath  with  St.  John  the  Apostle,  and  even  puts  Aristion 's 
name  first. 

I  fully  admit  that  this  mention  of  Aristion  is  perplexing. 


•  Kii'icb.  //.  /i",  iii.  39.  MapKOf /yici' cp/uiTifevTi};  ne'rpou  ■yecojuefo?  oaa  efivrffiofevaev  aKpi- 
pit^  eypa>()ti/.  The  words  may  ni<.-an,  "Wrote  accurately  all  that  he  (Mark)  remembered  ;" 
or,  "all  that  he  (Peter)  related"  (Westcoit,  On  the  Canon,  p.  74).  Here,  again,  we  notice 
the  ambiguity  of  the  style  of  Papias. 


APPENDIX.  721 

Of  this  Aristion  we  know  absolutely  nothing.'  It  is  startling, 
and  it  is  a  little  painful,  to  find  Papias  referring  to  him  as  an 
eminent  contemporary  witness  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  nar- 
rative, when  we  can  give  no  information  whatever  respecting 
him.     He  is  a  ?iominis  umbra,  and  nothing  more. 

So  strongly  has  this  been  felt  that  some — and  among  them 
Renan — suppose  that,  instead  of  "the  disciples  of  the  Lord" 
in  the  second  clause  of  the  passage  of  Papias,  we  ought  to 
read  ''the  disciples  of  disciples  {fxadrjTol  fxaO-qroiv)  of  the  Lord," 
and  that  the  word  fjiaOr)T<Zv — which  would  relegate  Aristion  and 
"John  the  Presbyter"  to  the  second  generation  of  disciples 
— has  dropped  out  by  the  clerical  error  known  as  honiocote- 
leutoii.  Another  suggestion  is,  that  the  name  of  John  in  the 
first  clause  is  simply  interpolated.  But  since  neither  Euse- 
bius  nor  any  one  else  knew  or  dreamt  of  such  readings, 
the  conjectures  merely  rest  on  foregone  conclusions.  If  we 
may  thus  tamper  with  ancient  authors,  we  may  make  them 
say  anything  that  we  please.  Moreover,  a  person  who  be- 
longed to  the  second  generation  of  disciples  would  not  have 
furnished  the  sort  of  authority  which  Papias  required.  To 
that  second  generation  he  himself  may  be  said  to  have  be- 
longed, for  he  was  a  contemporary  of  the  daughters  of  Philip, 
and  (as  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe)  had  talked  in  his 
youth  with  John  the  Apostle.  What  he  wanted  for  the  pur- 
poses of  his  Expositions,  was  oral  testimony  derived  at  first 
hand  from  the  original  sources. 

I  have  sometimes  thought,  and  still  think,  that  Aristion  is 
a  name  which  conceals  some  well-known  person.^  The  Jew- 
ish Apostles  commonly  bore  two  names:  one  among  their  own 
countrymen,  and  one  for  use  among  the  Gentiles.  There  is 
nothing  to  forbid  the  supposition  that  the  otherwise  unknown 
designation  may  in  reality  refer  to  some  Apostle  or  Apostolic 
man  who,  like  St.  John  and  St.  Philip,  had  taken  refuge  in 
Asia  from  the  storm  of  persecution  and  calamity  which  had 
burst  over  Judasa,  and  who  was  known  at  Hierapolis  by  the 
Greek  name  Aristion.  If  this  very  reasonable  and  moderate 
supposition  be  allowed,  all  difficulty  vanishes.  What  Papias 
then  means  to  say  is,  that  long  before  he  wrote  his  book  it 
had  been  his  habit  to  gather  all  he  could  about  the  statements 


'  There  is  no  authority  for  the  assertion  of  the  AJ>ostolical  Constitutions  (vii.  46),  which 
speaks  of  his  martyrdom,  and  connects  him  with  the  Church  of  Smyrna. 

2  When  I  wrote  this  I  was  entirely  unaware  that  Krenkel,  in  his  Der  Apostel  yohannes. 
p.  1 J 7,  had  been  led  to  make  exactly  the  same  conjecture.  Pereatit  i/ui  ante  nos  nostra 
dixeruut !  Polycrates  tells  us  that  John  and  Philip  were  at  this  time  the  '•  two  great  lights 
of  Asia."  If  "  Philip  "  were  not  a  Greek  name,  one  might  have  suspected  that  Aristion  was  a 
local  name  borne  by  Philip. 

46 


722  THE    EARLY    DAYS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

of  the  Apostles,  whom  he  calls  "Elders"— and  among  them 
about  the  statements  of  John — from  those  who  had  seen 
them;  and  that  he  also  took  notes  of  the  living  "oracles"  fur- 
nished to  him  directly  by  Aristion  (who  was  evidently  well 
known  to  Papias's  readers)  and  even — which  is  the  reason 
why  he  keeps  the  name  to  the  last  as  being  the  fact  which  he 
most  wished  to  emphasize — by  "John  the  Elder;" — the  same 
John — o  TTavv — the  only  John  of  whom  any  one  knew  anything 
— who  so  long  survived  his  brother  Apostles,  and  to  whose  in- 
direct testimony  Papias  has  just  referred. 

VIII.  We  have  then  sifted  to  the  bottom  the  whole  of  the 
so-called  evidence  for  the  existence  of  a  "John  the  Presbyter" 
who  was  not  John  the  Apostle. 

It  is 

1.  A  passage  of  Papias,  capable  of  quite  a  different  inter- 
pretation, and  which  seems  to  have  received  a  quite  different 
interpretation,  not  only  for  a  full  century  after  he  was  dead, 
but  also  (in  spite  of  Eusebius)  in  subsequent  times. 

2.  A  hesitating  and  tentative  guess  of  Dionysius,  rising 
solely  from  his  avowed  inability  to  regard  the  Apostle  as  the 
author  of  the  Apocalypse. 

3.  Some  dubious  gossip  (<^c<o-ti/)  about  two  tombs  at  Ephe- 
sus,  which,  if  trustworthy  at  all,  was  believed  by  some  to  be 
due  to  an  attempt  to  reconcile  the  inventions  of  rival  guides. 

■4.  Eagerness  on  the»part  of  Eusebius  to  support  this  in- 
verted pyramid  of  conjectures,  out  of  positive  dislike  to  the 
Apocalypse  caused  by  the  abuses  of  Millenarians.^ 

'  'Only  this,  and  nothing  more' ' !  And  thes^are  the  grounds 
on  which  we  are  now  asked  to  set  aside  the  direct  or  indirect 
testimony  of  Papias,"  of  Justin  Martyr,^  of  Polycarp,*  of  Poly- 
crates,'  of  Irenasus,"  of  Apollonius,'of  Clemens  of  Alexandria, 
of  (jrigen,  of  Melito,"  of  Andreas,  of  Arethas,  and,  in  fact,  of 
unI)roken  Church  tradition,  and  to  assign  the  works  of  the  last 
and  one  of  the  greatest  Apostles  to  an  obscure  and  dubious 
Presbyter!  It  is  on  this  evidence — so  late  and  so  tottering — 
evidence  based  on  an  awkwardly  expressed  but  perfectly  ex- 

*  Speaking  of  the  "certain  strange  parables  and  teachings  of  the  Saviour,  and  certain 
other  somewhat  mystical  things,"  which  Papias  recorded,  "from  innvritteu  tradition,"  Euse- 
bius specially  mentions  "some  millennium  of  years  after  the  resurrection  froih  the  dead,  dur' 
ing  which  the  kingdom  of  Christ  shall  be  established  bodily  upon  this  earth." 

'^  .-//.  Anastas.  .Sinaita,  Hexaem.  i.  (Routh,  i.  15). 

3  nial.  c.  Tryplt.  81. 

<  .\f>.  Iren.,  etc.,  and  Euseb.  Chron.  ad  Olymp.  220. 

*  Sec  Jer.  de  Virr.  lUustr.  xlv,  ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  26  (Routh,  i.  372). 
"  .//.  Euseb.  V.  20,  etc. 

'  Euseb.  //.  K.  V.  18. 
•■  Euseb.  //.  /•;.  iv.  26. 


APPENDIX.  723 

plicable  passage  of  Papias,  a  simple  writer  who  had  no  pretence 
to  subtlety  of  intellect  or  grace  of  style — and  on  a  professed 
quotation  from  Papias  in  the  ninth  century  by  Georgius  Hamar- 
tolos,  who,  in  the  very  same  sentence,  attributes  to  Origen 
an  opinion  which  his  own  writings  show  to  be  false — that 
some  critics  have  ventured  to  rewrite  the  history  of  the  first 
century;  to  assert,  in  spite  of  overwhelming  evidence,  that  the 
Apostle  St.  John  never  was  in  Asia  at  all;  that  Polycarp  never 
saw  him;  that  the  John  for  whom  Polycarp  expressed  so  pro- 
found a  reverence  was  only  a  "Presbyter"  who,  jike  himself, 
belonged  to  the  second  generation  of  Christians;  that  Ire- 
naeus  was  mistaken  in  supposing  that  Polycarp  meant  the  Apos- 
tle when  he  only  meant  the  Presbyter;  that,  if  this  be  thought 
impossible,  the  letter  of  Irenseus  to  Florinus  must  be  regarded 
as  a  forgery;'  that  this  "Presbyter,"  whose  very  existence  was 
only  conjectured  a  century  later,  is  quoted  as  an  oracle  by 
Papias;  that  Polycrates,  himself  Bishop  of  Ephesus  less  than 
a  century  after  John's  death,  made  the  same  preposterous 
mistake  which  is  attributed  to  Irenseus;'*  and  that  nebulous  as 
he  is,  unknown  as  he  is  to  early  writers,  utterly  as  every  fact 
about  him  has  perished,  the  "Presbyter"  was  still  the  author 
either  of  the  Gospel  and  Epistle,  or  of  the  Apocalypse,  or  of 
the  Second  and  Third  Epistles,  or  of  all  these  writings  alike. 
Crcdat  Judams  ApcUa — non  ego! 

But  the  impugners  of  St.  John's  Asiatic  work  raise  one  or 
two  chronological  difficulties.  They  say  that  if  Irenteus  knew 
Polycarp,  who  knew  St.  John,  all  three  must  have  attained 
to  extraordinary  longevity.  The  longevity  need  not  have  been 
very  unusual.  Tradition  has  always  supposed  that  St.  John 
reached  extreme  old  age.  Supposing  that  he  died  as  early 
as  A.D.  90,  and  that  Irenseus  wrote  about  a.d.  180,  then,  as 
M.  Renan  remarks,  the  difference  which  separated  the  two 
would  be  the  same  as  that  which  separates  us  from  the  last 
years  of  Voltaire.  Yet,  without  any  miracle  of  longevity,  M. 
de  Remusat  had  often  conversed  about  Voltaire  with  I'Abbe 
Morellet,  who  had  actually  known  him.  If  the  martyrdom  of 
Polycarp  took  place,  as  Mr.  Waddington  seems  to  have  proved, 


1  This  entirely  baseless  suggestion  of  Scholten  does  not  at  all  help  his  cause,  for,  ap.-wt 
from  the  letter  to  Florinus,  the  testimony  of  Ircnajus,  in  his  great  work.  Contra  Haercses,  is 
quite  distinct.  ,,,,.. 

2  Scholten  sets  aside  the  testimony  of  Polycrates,  because  he  calls  John  a  priest  wearmcj 
t\\e./>etaloH."  15ut  (i)  It  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  St.  John,  who,  at  one  period,  was  m) 
fond  of  symbols,  may  have  adopted  this  symbol  to  express  the  truth  *vhich  he  so  promincnily 
states  (Rev.  i.  6  :  v.  lo).  (2)  It  is  not  clear  that  Polycrates,  in  this  highly  rhetoric:)!  passage, 
meant  his  words  to  be  taken  literally.  {3)  Even  if  he  did,  he  may  have  been  ini^led  by  giving 
a  literal  meaning  to  some  metaphor  of  St  John. 


724  THE    EARLY   DAYS   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

about  A.D.  155,'  Polycarp  was  then  86  years  old.  Conse- 
quently he  must  have  been  born  in  a.d.  69,  and  would  have 
been  at  least  21  years  old  when  St.  John  died,  and  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  the  supposition  that  Irenaeus,  as  a  boy,  had 
seen  and  known  a  man  who  had  conversed  with  the  Apostle 
who  had  laid  his  head  on  Jesus'  breast. 

A  credulous  spirit  of  innovation  is  welcome  to  believe  and 
to  proclaim  that  any  or  all  of  St.  John's  writings  were  written 
by  **John  the  Presbyter."  They  w^ere:  but  "John  the  Pres- 
byter" is  none  other  than  John  the  Apostle.^ 

1  Mem.  de  riustiiut,  xxvi.  235. 

2  'I'his  argument  has  already  been  printed  in  the  Expositor,  because  I  wished  to  subject 
it  to  the  test  of  criticism.  Some  of  my  arguments  about  the  "Beast"  and  the  "False 
Prophet"  have,  for  the  same  reason,  appeared  in  the  same  admirable  journal.  I  am  allowed, 
by  the  kindness  of  Messrs.  Hodder  and  Stoughton,  to  use  the  same  material  here. 


INDEX. 


Aaron — the  first  High  Priest,  as  described  by 
the  Son  of  Sirach,  Wi  et  seq. 

Abel — an  example  of  faith,  2i)'3 ;  his  subject 
of  dispute  with  Cain.  297  ;  murdered  by 
his  brother,  G^iO  ;  referred  to  in  Book  of 
Enoch,  (JS'2. 

Abgar— Kin<^  of  Edessa,  54. 

Abarbanel  and  others  respecting  the  Tables 
in  the  Ark,  2GS. 

Abraham— the  trial  of  his  faith,  377  et  seq.; 
known  throughout  the  East  as  "  the 
friend  of  God,"  387;  his  example  as  ad- 
duced by  Paul  and  by  James,  ibid. 

Absalom— a  scurrilous  epithet  of  the  Tal- 
mud. 250. 

Accsius — his  views  on  mortal  sin,  228. 

Adam— a  Kabbalistic  inference  drawn  from 
tne  name,  229. 

A(lelpk"theos,  347,  374.   . 

Advent— The  Second,  vagaries  respecting  the, 
4!)7. 

yElia  Capitolina  and  the  abrogation  of  Juda- 
ism, 34:5,  503. 

Aeipartheiiia  defined  and  discussed,  317. 

Agapie,  or  Love-feasts,  ISO. 

Ayrapha  clo:jmata,  or  unrecorded  sayings  of 
Christ,  45(). 

Agrippa  I. — his  antipathy  to  the  Christians, 
y.'j7,  359;  the  patron  of  Ishmael  ben 
Phabi,  39(5. 

Agrippina — daughter  of  Germanicus,  15; 
born  at  Cologne,  16  ;  married  (1)  to  Gn. 
Dom.  Ahenobarbus,  by  whom  she  be- 
came mother  of  Nero,  ibid.  ;  banished 
to  Pontin,  and  their  property  confiscated, 
17;  afterwards  married  to  Crispus  Pas- 
sienus,  17 ;  and  afterwards  to  her  uncle 
the  Emperor  Claudius,  IS  ;  she  procures 
the  adoi)tion  of  Nero,  her  own  son,  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  heir-apparent,  19 ;  she 
p()isc>iis  her  husband,  22;  procures  the 
Imperial  purple  for  Xero.  23  :  and  is  by 
him  dignified  as  "the  best  of  mothers," 
ibid.  ;  but  eventually  assassinated  by  his 
orders,  31. 

Akhiva — his  martyrdom  by  the  Romans, 
387,  404. 

Alexander  the  Great — his  patronage  of  the 
Jews,  1(;2. 

Alexandria — its  natural  advantages,  161  ;  its 
synagogue,  162  ;  its  Sanhcdrin,  H'hi  ;  its 
artificers  and  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem, 


ibid. ;  its  epoch-making  literature,  ibid, 
et  seq.;  the  Septuagint.  164-167;  the 
writings  of  Aristobulus,  168  et  seq.  ;  tho 
Book  of  Wisdom,  169  ;  its  Philonic  litera- 
ture, ibid.;  its  part  in  paving  the  way 
for  Christianity,  179 ;  catechetical  school 
at,  ibid.;  its  Anti-Gnostic  aims.  180; 
theosophy,  181  et  neq.  ;  its  views  on  in- 
spiration, lt4:  its  inflnence  on  the  Paul- 
ine Epistles,  185  ;  other  contributions  to 
Christianity,  197 ;  its  indebtedness  to 
Plato.  203  ;  Barnabas  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  \\\c  Church  of,  214;  ApoUos 
a  native  of,  217  ;  certain  Jews  of,  burned 
alive,  an  event  possibly  alluded  to  in 
Hob.  xi.  37,  294. 

Alexandrian  ism — indications  of,  in  the  writ- 
ings of  John  and  Paul,  60. 

Aliturus.  the  court-jester  of  Nero,  a  Jewish 
proselyte,  42,  547. 

Allegory  and  its  developments,  181  et  seq. 

AlphaMis  identifieil  with  James  in  the  Church 
of  England  Scripture  lessons,  312 ;  but 
contradistinguished  by  the  Greek 
Church,  ibid. 

Altar  of  Incense  and  the  Holiest  Place,  700 
et  seq. 

Amalthca's  Horn — mentioned  in  the  Septua- 
gint, 166. 

Amhaaretz — its  definition,  use,  etc.,  419. 

Anagram  of  malediction  upon  the  name 
Jesus,  250. 

Andreas  (Bp.) — his  comment  on  Revelation 
referred  to,  536. 

Andrew — his  travels,  mission,  and  martyr- 
dom, .55. 

Aneling — a  practice  of  the  early  Church 
provided  for  in  the  first  Prayer-book  of 
Edward  VI.,  399. 

Angel  of  Death  and  R.  bar  Nachman,  509. 

Angels — the  fallen,  Enoch's  mission  to  thorn, 
152  ;  their  sin  as  traditionally  recorded, 
155,  685;  ministering,  their  service  at 
Sinai,  298;  the  angelic  hei)tarchy,  1.54, 
515;  angel  of  death,  151,  232,  394, 
509. 

Annas  the  younger  and  the  martyrdom  of 
James,  348;  himself  cruelly  murdered 
by  his  own  co-religionists,  .'\54,  485  ;  and 
his  remains  dishonoured,  48.5.  527. 

Antichrist— The  rise  of,  11  ;  identified  with 
Nero,  12,  474,  etc. ;  the  Antichrist  of  Old 


INDEX. 


T.'stanient  ApocnlyiiFC.  38,  472  ;  .1  term 
peculiar  to  John,  i\2:i  el  xeq. 

Antilcs/umena,  or  oisinited  Books  of  Scrip- 
ture, 14:3,  (iOO.  (See  also  Jlumolor/ou- 
vieiia.) 

Antinoiiiiniiism— a  travesty  of  Pauline  doc- 
trine, 51*. 

Aniiooh  and  the  origination  of  the  term 
Christian.  i»7. 

Antiochus  Epiphancs— the  Antichrist  of  Dan- 
iel, ;:J8,  47-2. 

AiKX-alypse  of  John  the  Divine,  not  the  latest 
book  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures, 
4(!4 :  dates  next  in  order  to  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  4t  C  et  aeq.  ;  its  originating  cir- 
cunistaiK-es,  470 ;  Nero  depicted,  471 ; 
persecution  of  the  Christians,  472  et 
neq. ;  outbreak  of  Jewish  War.  ifnd.  et 
seq  ;  siege  of  Jerusalem,  473 ;  other  his- 
torical surroundins^s,  474-401 ;  reception 
of  the  work,  45W  et  seq.  ;  the  various 
schools  of  interpretation,  495 ;  discussed 
in  detail,  4'.m;-.5()2  ;  letters  to  the  seven 
churches,  503-5(15;  the  Apostolic  twelve, 
505;  its  animadversions,  50t>-.508;  the 
seals,  50'.) :  the  first  seal,  ibid.  ;  the 
second,  510;  i  he  third,  ibid,  et  seq.  ;  the 
fourth.  :>\2et  seq.  ;  the  fifth,  ibid.  ;  the 
sixth,  513  :  the  sealing.  514 ;  the  seven 
trumpets,, 515,  516;  detailed  with  his- 
toric illustrations,  510-523 :  an  interlude, 
523;  the  seven  thunders,  ibid.  ;  the  wit- 
nesses, 525,  520  ;  forecast  of  the  doom  of 
Jcrusiilem.  527  et  aeq. ;  the  wild  beast  of 
the  sea,  528-535 ;  identified  with  Nero, 
535  et.wq.  ;  the  mystic  number  «iOO,  537- 
5-13 :  the  false  prophet,  544  ei  seq.  ;  il- 
lustr.itions  from  Roman  history.  548-553 ; 
the  vials.  554  et  seq.  ;  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
5.59  et  seq.  ;  the  end  of  the  dispensation, 
5«')1 :  and  abrogation  of  Judaism,  5t.'3  et 
seq. 

Apocalyptic  literature — Apocalypse  of  Ba- 
ruch,  456,  492 ;  of  Esdras,  4()1 ;  of  Peter, 
116. 

AiXHM-yphal  Gospels — the  Protcvangelion, 
321  ;  Gospel  of  Joseph,  ibid. ;  of  Thomas, 
322 ;  to  Hebrews.  335  ;  apocryphal  works 
attributed  to  Jolin,  4r(5  :  Books — the  As- 
cension of  Moses,  131.  151,  154,  1.5(i;  of 
Isaiah,  .522,  530. 551 ;  of  James,  ;M3  ;  the 
Assumption  of  Moses,  OSfi,  (.S'^e  also  s.v. 
Barnabas,  and  other  distincitive  names.) 

A  polios— the  inobable  author  of  Hebrews, 
(KJ ;  ac(piainted  with  Philonian  philoso- 
phy, 179,  195;  his  method  of  interpreta- 
tion. llMi;  compares  favourably  with  that 
of  I'hilo,  197-199;  c(mtrastpd  with  that 
of  I'aul.  200,  212;  ten  quiilificatinns  for 
writing  such  an  epistle,  212  et  seq.  ;  all 
(•xcmplifii><l  in  Apollos,  210;  sketch  of 
hJB  chamct(^r.  ibid.  :  notices  of  him  and 
hlH  work  in  Now  Testatiient.  210  et  seq.  ; 
liis  native  ])lace  and  early  home.  217;  no 
Jiintthat  he  ever  visited  Rome.  221  ;  last 
Heripturni  mention  of  his  name,  222. 
(See  s.v.  lIohrnwH.) 

ApostiiRj'— as  rourftrdeil  by  the  compiler  of  the 
-Mishnah,  270. 

Aiv.theoKiH  of  Claudius  Ca-sar,  21;  of  Cali- 


gula and  Nero,  535 ;  of  the  Roman  Em- 
perors generally,  550. 

Aqnila  and  PrisciUa — their  departui'e  from 
Home,  13. 

Aqnila — his  Gi-eek  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, l;i9  ;  accredited  with  the  author- 
ship of  Hebrews,  214. 

Archangels — Jude  and  John  the  only  New 
Testament  writers  who  mention  them, 
154 ;  the  seven  according  to  A.pocryphal 
books  and  the  Talmud,  ibid  (note) :  the 
hierarchy,  according  to  fourth  Esdras, 
225. 

Aretas,  King  of  Arabia — his  adventure  with 
the  high  priest  Ishmael,  263. 

Aristeas  and  the  origin  of  the  Sei>tua;^'int, 
1()4. 

Aristiou.  as  mentioned  in  the  writings  of 
Papias,  700  et  seq. 

Ark  and  Tables  of  the  Covenant,  260  et  seq. 

Arminian  perversions  of  Scripture,  247,  \ 

Arthur  ami  King  John — parallel  from  Roman 
history,  26. 

Asinarii—a.  satirical  term  applied  to  early 
Christinns,  44.  97  ;  the  Jews  similarly 
slandered,  44.  267. 

Atonement,  Day  of — as  regarded  by  Barna- 
bas, 69  ;  its  iiaramount  place  in  Judaism, 
210  ;  Rabbmic  ceremonies,  701  et  seq.  ; 
impressions  on  Jewish  mind>^,  703 ;  its 
connection  with  the  overthrow  of  Juda- 
ism, iUd. ;  traditional  reminiscences,  1 04 
et  seq. 

Augurs  and  Auguries — their  prevalence,  546. 

Augustus — his  aversion  to  deification,  tt^io  ; 
his  edicts  against  sorcerers,  etc.,  .545. 

Aulus  Plautius  antl  Christianity  in  Britain, 
39. 

Avreum  Qninqneyinizim  of  Rome,  25. 

Autos  da  Fo  and  Te  Deums.  389. 

Avodath  Hakkodesh — a  Kabbalistic  work 
quoted,  2.56. 

Azazel  and  the  bcape-goat  of  Jewry,  277,  701, 
704. 


B. 


Babylon — covertly  referred  to  by  Jeremiah, 
541 ;  figuratively  applied  in  1  Peter,  680, 
CN2. 

Balaam — Legend  of,  aUnded  to  in  the  Scp- 
tuagint  and  the  Targum,  75  :  his  apos- 
tasy, 120 ;  compared  with  the  imiiious  and 
false,  129  ;  with  evil-doers  generally,  131 ; 
how  slain  by  Phinehas,  167. 

Bamidbar  Rabba — a  Rabbinic  commentary 
on  Numbers,  240. 

Barachias,  Son  of — probably  an  erroneons 
gloss,  485. 

Barcochba,  a  false  Messiah  of  the  Jews — 'h'.'^ 
aversion  to  Christians,  43 ;  shares  in 
their  pcrsecuticm  and  massacre,  563. 

Barnabas— his  Epistle,  its  drift  and  tone,  62  ; 
publicly  read  in  the  Church.  67;  its 
marked  inferiority  to  the  canonical  Scri])- 
tures,  0'.);  Alexandrian  proclivities.  Oil 
et  seq.  ;  its  Kabbalistic  vagaries  and  her- 
etical tendencies,  70  ;  quoted  or  referred 
lo,  69c<se.7.,102,  219. 


INDEX. 


727 


Bartholomew — his  mission-work  and  mar- 
tyrdom, 55. 

Bafeilical  Synagogue  at  Alexandria,  1»)2  et 
seq.  ;  said  to  have  been  the  grandest  in 
the  world,  the  glory  of  Israel,  KW. 

Bath  Kol,  or  voice  from  Heaven,  340. 

Berenice  (Queen) — her  intercession  for  the 
Jews,  47!), 

Bereshith  llabba — a  Rabbinic  commentary 
on  Genesis  quoted  or  referred  to,  1G5, 
253,  254,  257,  5<i(),  589,  C1)S>. 

Beruriah,  the  wife  of  llabbi  Meier — her 
praiseworthy  advice,  t)50. 

Blood — no  remission  without,  parallel  from 
the  Talmud,  274. 

Brethren  of  the  Lord,  145. 

Burning  of  Home — possible  reminiscences  in 
St.  reter\s  Epistle,  43. 

Bnrru.s  (Afranins)— a  partisan  of  Agrippina, 
21 ;  by  her  made  Prastorian  Priefect  and 
guardian  of  tte  youthful  Nero,  22;  his 
iuHuen'.'e  for  good  over  his  ward,  24  ;  his 
reprehensible  laxity  in  certiiin  matters, 
25 :  his  compromise,  30 ;  eventually 
poisoned  by  order  of  the  Emjieror,  who 
was  so  much  indebted  to  him,  33. 


C. 


Ctesar  (fiee  distinctive  names). 

C«sarian  race — its  premature  mortality,  12, 
15. 

Cain — his  parentage  according  to  the  Rabbis, 
C30. 

Calvin's  perversions  of  Holy  Writ,  240. 

"Camel  and  needle's  eye"  exijlained,  247. 

Carthage— Councils  of,  117,  355,  093. 

Catacombs  at  Rome,  10,  97,  lOS. 

Catliolic — definition  of  the  term,  GO. 

Catholic  Epistles^-Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
upon,  060.  note. 

Cato  the  younger— his  character  described, 
()2y. 

Centre  of  the  earth  from  a  Rabbinic  point  of 
view,  268,  345. 

Cerinthus — a  Judneo-Christian  heresiareh, 
134  ;  the  immorality  of  his  system,  157  ; 
taught  in  Asia,  4-18;  accredited  by  Di- 
oiiysius  of  Alexandria  with  the  writing 
of  tlie  Apocalypse.  449;  he  was  the  ear- 
liest of  the  Christian  Gnostics,  454  ;  the 
story  of  his  death  at  Ephesus,  4.55  ;  his 
heretical  views  and  legendary  associa- 
tions, 57;3-575. 

Chariemagne  and  the  pirate  Norsemen,  130. 

Chiliasts  or  the  Millenarians.  59. 

xf?,  the  mystic  symbol  for  166,  539. 

Cnrestos  and  Christos,  an  interesting  parono- 
masia, 103. 

Chrestus — a  perverted  form  of  Christu.<?,  13  ; 
the  notion  that  Chrestus  was  a  seditioua 
Roman  Jew,  ibid. ;  Chrestian,  a  parody 
upon  the  term  Christian,  112;  pos.sibly 
alluded  to  by  Peter,  ibid. 

Christ— name  ironically  turned  to  Chrestus, 
13  ;  styled  Christus  by  Tacitus.  40  ;  His 
life  and  work  objectively  treated  in  the 
synoptic  Gospels,  57  ;  but  subjectively  by 
John,  58;    though  scarcely  alluded  to 


by  James,  87  ;  His  example,  sufferings, 
death,  resurrection,  and  a.scension  are 
dwelt  upon  by  I'eter,  ibid. :  His  mission 
to  the  spirits  in  prison,  91-94,  110-111; 
the  Desposyni,  descendants  of  the  family 
at  Nazareth,  144-146 ;  the  redemption 
scheme,  208,  209  ;  the  atonement,  209 ; 
Buiierior  to  angels.  i?25-2-.i7;  pre-emint-nt 
to  Sloses,  232;  High  I'rie.M-hcx-Ml  of,  236, 
2:57  ;  above  that  of  the  Levites,  238 ;  and 
Melchizedek,  262;  various  points  of  fu- 
jiremacy,  279-281;  His  atoning  blood, 
2.''2;  His  i)erfect  obedience,  2bii  et  .seq.  : 
recapitulation  of  the  phases  of  supe- 
riority, 284  el  seq.  ;  the  Second  Advent, 
561 ;  end  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
ibid.  ;  abrogation  of  Judaism,  563  ;  a 
denier  of  Jesus  is  Antichrist,  .576; 
knowledge  of  Christ  is  life  etenial,  586 ; 
the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  (the  Divine 
Word)  considered,  587. 
Christ— disguised  references  to,  in  the  Tal- 
mud and  Rabbinic  writings,  682. 
Christendom  and   Heathendom  coi)trasted, 

71. 
Christians — until  Nero's  time,  never  brought 
into  collision  with  the  Imperial  govern- 
ment, 13 :  Neronian  persecution,  38  et 
seq.  ;  suffered  through  jealousy,  42 ; 
.Jewish  malice  the  luimary  cause  of  their 
jiersecution,  43;  regarded  by  the  world 
as,  a  debased  Jewish  sect,  97  ;  the  name 
"Christian"'  originated  at  Antioch, 
ibid.;  "everywhere  spoken  against." 
ibid.  ;  taunted  as  renegades  and  apos- 
tates, 923;  took  refuge  at  Pella  in  pro.s- 
pect  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  445,  473  ; 
])erseouted  by  Barcochba,  563. 
Christianity — a  religio  illicita  at  Rome.  79 ; 
as  regarded  by  Pliny  and  Tacitus,  !t7 ;  its 
relations  to  Judaism,  195  ;  its  superiority 
to  Philonian  philosophy.  198;  more  an- 
cient than  Judaism,  2(y  :  refeiTed  to 
Abraham  by  I'aul,  and  to  Melchizedek 
by  Apollos,  201 ;  a  rev(!rsion  to  Judaism 
the  worst  kind  of  apostasy,  202;  in  what 
its  pre-eminence  consists,  904,  208  ;  Ju- 
daic Christianity  predisposed  to  Phari- 
saism, 350 ;  the  Sadducees  its  most  .^ 
extreme  opponents,  ibid. 
Christologv  of  Paul.  207  et  seq.  ;  of   Apollos 

and  of  John,  208. 
Chrysostom.  his  noble  resolution  in  prospect 

of  exile  and  martyrdom,  108. 
Cities  of  the  plain — their  overthrow,  131,  150, 

153. 
Claudius — his  edict  for  the  expulsion  of  the 

Jews  from  Rome,  13. 
Cleanthes,  the  Stoic  philosopher,  his  death 

by  suicide,  9. 
Clement  of  Alexandria — his  account  of 
Peter's  family.  74 ;  in  favour  of  1st  Epis- 
tle of  Peter.  80  ;  his  literary  labours  re- 
ferred to.  94,  109,  116, 118, 141,  157,  179; 
on  the  Pauline  authorship  of  Hebrews. 
186 ;  unaeciuainted  with  Epistle  of  .lames, 
354  ;  his  story  of  John  and  the  robber, 
4.58—160  ;  the  martvrdom  of  the  apo.stlcs, 
463. 
Clement  of  Rome— his  epistle  publicly  read 


72^ 


INDEX. 


in   the  church,  07;   syncretism  ot  the  j 
writer,  (W ;  his  catholicity,  theology,  and  | 
his  mistaken  notions,  ibid. ;  the  eviden-  ] 
tiftl  value  of  his  writing,  tji) ;  Bishop  of 
lloine,  7(> ;  speaks  more  of  Paul  than  of  I 
Peter,  17  ;  thouyh  suid  to  have  b(;en  or-  I 
dallied  by  the  latter,  78;  his  definition 
of  faith,  S!> ;    makes  no  reference  to  2d  \ 
Epi-tle  of  Peter,  IKi;  his  various  writ-  \ 
iii-rs  mentioned.  l.'JS,  Ml  ;  the  Book  of  i 
Wisdom  and   Hebrews  known  to   him,  , 
2U8;  accredited   by  some  with  the   au- 
thorslni>  of  the  latter.  215:  made  use  of 
Epistle  of  James,  355 ;  quotation  made  [ 
from    his  writings,   3113;  his   record   of  j 
Peter's  martyrdom,  OTi». 

Clemer.tinu  Homilies  and  Recognitions — the 
product  of  ilbionites,  CJ ;  their  disfavour 
of  visions,  138  ;  their  polemic  character, 
371  ;  their  animus  against  Paul,  402 ; 
allusions  to  Peter's  connection  wiih 
Rome,  (580. 

Cleopas  an  abbreviation  of  Cleopater,  311. 

Cleoiiatfa,  the  wife  of  the  Procurator  Florus, 
a  friend  of  the  Empress  Poppsea,  478. 

Clopas,  Chalpai  or  Alphneus,  ;"11. 

Coincidences  (undesigned)  between  the  ac- 
count in  Acts  and  the  writings  of  James, 

Comforter — true  meaning  of  word  so  ren- 
dered. 613  et  seq. ;  Talmudic  adoption  of 
the  original  word,  G14. 

Commandments,  the  Ten — Philo's  idea  that 
they  were  littered  by  God,  and  the  vest 
of  "the  Law  by  angels,  226 ;  Talmudic 
notion  that  the  first  Commandment  only 
was  spoken  by  God,  and  the  others  were 
uttered  by  the  angels,  230. 

Compassion  deprecated  by  the  Romans,  9. 

Confession  in  sickness  a  Jewish  as  well  as  a 
Christian  ordinance,  3U!)  et  seq. 

Cornelius  i  Lapide — his  summary  dealings 
•with  herotf's,  673. 

Cremation — the  Empress  Poppaja's  objection 
to,  42. 

Crispus  Passienus,  the  fathcr-in-lavvof  Nero, 
17. 

Cromwell  and  final  jierseverance,  216. 

Crusades  referred  to,  428. 

Cryptographs— Jewish  and  Christian,  54, 
250,  537,  681. 

Custom— its  force  in  Rabbinic  Judaism,  186. 


Daniel— Book  of,  known  to  Peter.  101 ;  his  I 

predictions  of  the  fate  of   Rome,  how  i 

treated  in  Josephus,  5'Jl. 
Days,  the  Ten  Penitential,  of  modem  Juda-  ' 

ism,  276.  1 

Dcbarim  Rabba,  a  Rabbinic  commentary  on  , 

Deuteronomy,  31M.  I 

Deification  of  Popi)a}a,  the  murdered  wife  of 

Nero,  10. 
Dciweiit  into  TTades,  100-110. 
Desiiosyni,   The,   or   relations  of  the  Holy 

I'Vmily,  143  et  seq.,  321. 
Dkuiporu—thc  Hellenistic  designation  of  the 

DltiperRed  Jews,  100,  375.    (ISee  also  Oa- 

lootha.) 


Diatheke — classical  sense  of  the  word,  its  nse 
in  a  twofold  sense  In  the  Hebrews,  271, 
272 ;  Rabbinic  adoption  and  use  of  the 
word,  272. 

Dikaisune  in  judicial  and  in  Scriptural  no- 
menclature, 206. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  714,  715. 

Divorce — the  first  on  record  iu  the  annals  of 
Rome,  5. 

Domiiie,  quo  vctdis  ?  75. 

Domitfa,  aunt  and  guardian  of  Nero,  17 ;  her 
neglect  of  her  charge,  ibid. ;  incurs  the 
jealousy  of  Agrippina,  21 ;  accused  of 
sorcery  and  doomed  to  death,  22. 

Domitian — his  adventure  with  the  Despo- 
syni,  the  grandsons  of  Jude,  143  et  seq.  ; 
his  banishment  of  John  to  Patmos,  467 
et  seq. 

Domitius  Ahenobarbus,  father  of  Nero — his 
chai-acter,  his  oniinoiis  saying  at  Nero's 
birth,  his  banishment  for  treason,  and 
the  confiscation  of  his  j^roperty,  17. 


Ebionitcs — an  early  heretical  sect,  59;  claimed 

the  authority  of  James,  62  ;  attempt  to 

calumniate  Paul,    76 ;  their  views  and 

practices,  570  et  seq. 
Emperors  of  Rome — their  autocratic  position, 

4;  their  moral   characteristics,  9;  pre- 

matui-e  death,  519 ;  their  deification,  5L5. 
Encaenia,  the  least  of  Dedication,  274. 
Enoch,  Book  of— referred  to  by  Peter  and 

Jude,  132.     (See  also  Excursus  IV.  and 

Index  to  Enoch.) 
Ephesian   Robber,   a    legend  of    the    early 

Church,  4(i2. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to— its  style,  122  ;  its  in- 
fluence upon  I.  Petei-,  123. 
Epictetus  the  philosophier,  saying  quoted, 

2«7. 
Epimenidop.  Aratus.  and  Menander,  Paul's 

quotation  of,  15'). 
Epiphany  at  Sinai — how  represented  in  the 

Septuagint,  167. 
Epistles,  the  Catholic,  60.     {See  also  under 

respective  names.) 
Epistles,   the    Uncanonical — the    Epistle  of 

Barnabas,   69-70,    102,    219;    Epistle   of 

(Element,  67-69:  Epistle  of  Ignatius.  251, 

571,  608,  675 ;  Epi.stle  of  Polycarp,  505, 

606. 
Ethnic  inspiration — exemplified  in  Socrates, 

Plato,   etc.,  184  et  seq.  ;  in  heathen  lit- 

oratuie  generally,  203. 
Eurijiides — Nero's  significant  comment  upon 

a  verse  of,  34. 
Eusebius'  quotation  of  a  non-extant  passage 

of  Josephus,  351  et  seq. 
Eutropius  concerning  the  burning  of  Rome, 

34. 
Exodus — a  term  used  for  death  in  Josephus, 

in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  and  in  Peter, 

131. 


Faith— as  defined  by  Peter,  89 ;  by  Clement, 
ibid. :  by  Paul.  205 ;  by  Phiio  Judanis, 
205;  by  the  author  of '  Hebrew.s,  ibid.; 


INDEX. 


729 


of  Abraham,  as  recorded  in  Rabbinic 
story,  411. 

Famine — at  Rome,  temp.  Claudius,  510  :  an- 
other in  time  of  Otho,  511 ;  at  Jerusalem 
during  the  final  siege,  ibid. 

Fast— the  consummate,  of  the  Jewish  calen- 
dar, iJTG  ;  the  bi-weekly  fast  of  New  Tes- 
tament times,  ibid. 

Felix,  Roman  Procurator  of  Judaea,  18. 

Festus  the  Procurator  defends  Paul,  13  ;  his 
official  character  relatively  considered, 
348. 

niioli,  diligite  alterntrnm,  the  favourite 
words  of  John,  462,  (>77. 

Final  perseverance,  246,  2b8. 

Forbidden  books  of  Jewry,  327. 

Foundation  stone  of  the  world,  267  et  seq. 


G. 


Gains  (Caligula)— his  animosity  to  the  Jew?, 

13. 
Gaius  of  Corinth  and  others  of  the   same 

name  discriminated,  675. 
Galatians.  Epistle  to — its  style  relatively  con 

sidered,  122  ;  its  date,  cS!). 
Gallio.  the  Proconsul— his  refusal  to  convict 

Paul,  13. 
Gaiootha,  The — the  Aramaic  designation  of 

the  dispersed  Jews,  100. 
Gamaliel  I. -counteracts  the  avarice  of  the 

priests,  .363  ;  interferes  on  behalf  of  the 

Apostles,  430. 
Gamaliel  II. — liis  characteristic  compromise 

at  the  baths  of  Ptolemais,  454. 
Ghetto  or  Jewry — of  Ancient  Rome,  13;  of 

Alexandria,  162. 
Geniatrin—t\\e  term  explained,  5-37 ;  various 

exemplification.s,  69,  276,  537-512. 
Gerizim— its  place  in  the    Samaritan  cult, 

214. 
Gcrmanicus,  grandfather  of  Nero,  15;   his 

tragic  end,  ibid. 
Gladiatorial  shows  at  Rome,   6;   of  Nero's 

time,  with  CJhristian  victims,  45  et  seq. 
Gospels,  the  Synoptic — mainly  present  the 

historical    aspect  of    Christ's    life,   57 ; 

their  fragmentsvry   nnture.    .58 :    John's 

Gospel  presents  subjective  aspect  mainly, 

ibid.  ;  James  never  mentions  the  Gospi-l, 

62 :  the  Gospel  preached  to  the  dead. 

91-94. 
Gospels,   the  Uncanonioal  (see  Apocryphal 

Gospels). 
Grnpiti  or  caricatures  at  Pompeii,  97. 
Greek  proverb  addressed  from  Heaven  to 

Paul,  184. 
Greek  "Versions  of  the  Old  Testament  {aee 

Aquila,  and  Septuagint). 
Greek  wisdom  and  the  Palestinian  Rabbis, 

165;   how  regarded   by  the  Raliylonian 

Jews,  l»i5 ;  its  effect  on  Jutlaism  gener- 
ally, 203. 
Gregory  of  Xazianzus — alone  among  Chris- 

tinn   writers    after    St.    John   worthily 

styled  "  The  Divine,"  503  ;  his  views  as 

to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  6. 


H. 


Habakkuk— his  summary  of  the  precepts, 
287. 

Hades— Christ's  descent  into,  109-110. 

Hagadah  and  Ilalachah — their  occurrence  in 
the  Septuagint,  166;  alike  familiar  to 
the  writer  of  Hebrews,  275  ;  compiled  by 
R.  Jndah,  forming  the  Mishnah,  o23  ; 
how  regarded  by  the  Rabbis,  340. 

Hagadistic  traces— in  Jude,  61,  151  et  seq., 
154-156,327,  684-686;  in  Paul,  185;  in 
Hebrews,  199 ;  not  any  to  be  found  in 
James,  327. 

Hapax  leyomena — in  1  Peter,  87 ;  in  2  Peter, 
120  et  seq.  ;  in  Jude,  153 ;  in  Hebrews, 
225  ;  in  James,  368. 

Haphtarah  and  Parashah,  interesting  iden- 
tifications respecting  the,  164. 

Heathendom — its  salient  features,  9  ;  con- 
trasted with  Christianity,  71. 

Heavenly  witnesses,  the  three,  643. 

Hebrew  unknown  to  Philo  Judajus,  169. 

Hebrews,  Epi-stle  to — the  work  of  Apollos, 
60  ;  an  expression  of  Alexandrian  Chris- 
tianity, ibid.  ;  a  link  binding  us  to  the 
Church  of  the  Jewish  Fathers,  183  ;  not 
written  by  Paul,  18.5-189  ;  attributed  to 
him  in  the  superscription  in  the  English 
Bible,  ibid. ;  and  twice  in  the  Prayer 
Book,  ibid.  ;  its  resemblances  to  Pauline 
writing  considered,  190;  its  dissimilarity 
thereto,  191-193  ;  its  theological  scops, 
193  ;  its  dealings  with  the  relations  of 
Christianity  and  Judaism,  195  ;  its 
marked  Alexandrianism,  195-197;  coin- 
cidences with  Philonian  literature,  198- 
199;  topical  detail,  20U-21 2  ;  account  of 
the  author,  216  et  seq.  ;  to  whoin  ad- 
dressed, 220,  221 :  where  written,  221  et 
seq.;  outline,  222,  223;  analy.sis,  with 
litei-il  version  and  commentary,  224-31:5 ; 
subjects  embraced  :  Christ's  supremacy, 
225-2:30 ;  man's  position,  231  et  seq.  ; 
mission  of  Christ.  232  et  seq. ;  Christ 
above  Moses,  etc.,  233  et  seq.  ;  exhorta- 
tion to  prompt  acceptance,  234,  235 ; 
priesthood  of  Christ  and  Mclchizedek 
compared  and  contrasted,  236-262;  the 
Levitical  priesthood  and  its  service 
superseded,  262-565 ;  the  new  Cove- 
nant, 265  ;  the  Tabernacle  and  its  sym- 
bolic furniture.  266-269;  Christ  their 
Antitype,  270-271  ;  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, 276-278;  Christ  the  true  High 
Priest.  279-281 ;  summing  up,  281-284  ; 
danger  of  ajwstasy,  286-287:  faith  de- 
fined and  exemi>lified,  288-294;  final 
admonitions,  294-.';G5. 

Hercnlaneum  and  its  relics,  2,  4. 

Heresy  defined,  misconceptions  considered, 
566  et  seq. 

Hernias,  a  post- Apostolic  -writer- his  works, 
•'  The  Pastor."  etc. ,  referred  to,  102, 116  ; 
quoted.  377,  389.  393,  4.-)7.  521. 

Herod  AL'rippa  I.  and  the  murder  of  Jame.s, 
.•]37,  440. 

Hesiod's  story  of  the  impri.soned  Titans,  150. 

Hexameter  verse  in  the  New  Testament, 
295,  378. 


730 


INDEX. 


High  rriost<?  under  the  first  and  Bpcond 
Temples  compared,  210  ei  sq.  ;  degra- 
dation of  the  oftU;e,  240  ;  mere  nominees 
of  the  rulers,  ttid.  {See  also  Ishmael 
ben  Phabi,  Jashua  beu  Gamala,  Simon 
f-km  of  Onias?,  etc.) 

nillcl  and  Shainnmi,  the  leaders  of  Jew-ish 
thi.ii>,'ht  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  ^24, 
525,  *«. 

ITipp<i,  ecclesiastical  council  of,  117. 

Holy  of  Uolies— Caligula's  attempt  to  pro- 
fane, 13;  Pompey's  surprise  to  find  it 
cmi)ty,  2W> ;  how  often  entered  by  High 
Priest  on  Day  of  Atoncnu-nt,  270. 

Jlomdlogmimemu  or  admitted  books  of  Holy 
Wiit.  257 :  and  see  Autilegomena. 

Ilynxn,  early  Christian — quoted,  53. 


Icarus— his  fatal  attempt  to  fly,  47. 

Idolatry — the  closing  words  (chi-onologically) 
of  the  New  Testament  a  warning 
aifainst,  4(i<}. 

IHT  in  JudjBo-Christian  symbolism,  70,  537. 

Incarnation,  the,  as  restricted  by  AiwUos, 
195. 

Infanticide — its.  prevalence  in  Imperial 
Ilome,  7 ;  contrary  to  Christian  usages, 
71. 

Insula:  of  Ancient  Rome,  3. 

Iren.Tus— his  strange  assertion  as  to  the  age 
of  our  liOixi,  458. 

Isaac  and  his  substitute — a  Rabbinic  legend, 
154. 

Isaiah — his  martyrdom  under  Manasseh, 
2!»4. 

Ishmael,  the  High  Priest — his  decade  of 
office,  ;d<i2 ;  stigmatised  as  taking  after 
Phinchas  (son  of  Eli),  363  ;  raised  to  the 
pontificate  by  Agrippa,  3!>fi;  his  adven- 
ture on  the  Day  of  Atom  inent,  613. 

Isidore  (Bp.  of  Seville)— respecting  the 
Epistle  to  Hebrews.  188  :  anecdote  of  the 
jwisoned  chalice,  446 ;  his  statement  as 
to  the  age  of  John  the  Divine,  462. 

Isop?ephia,  or  eqiiinuvieral  interpretation, 
537.  {See  also  Gematria  and  Kab- 
balah.) 


Jacob's  blessing,  cii-cumstanccs  of,  strangely 
perverted  in  the  Vnlgate,  etc\,  2!)3. 

Jaddua,  the  last  historic  personage  of  the 
Old  Testament  narrative,  162. 

Jamc«— his  ri'lationshi)),  306-32.3:  the  home 
at  Nazareth.  32^!  et  seq.  :  his  training, 
325-327:  his  acquaintance  with  the 
Pcriptnres,  .327;  wiLhuncanonical  litera- 
ture, thill. :  his  religions  status,  32i),  330  ; 
his  early  opinions  of  .Tesus!  and  His  mis- 
sion, ."Wl-IWS  ;  his  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity. Z']5\  as  Bishop  of  .lerusalem, 
.338:  proKidcH  at  the  Svnod,  339  et  seq.  ; 
his  parl>  In  tin"  (JentileVoutrovcrsy.  340  ; 
decision  roHpofting  pnisclytcs,  312;  his 
martyrilom,  31.'^.  '-Zyl:  Itab'liinic  legends, 
352  <-t  seq.  ;  nnd  traditional  details  from 
AixxTyj)hal  (Jospila,  ibid.,  note. 


James,  Epistle  of— "The  Gospel"  never 
mentioned.  62  ;  his  indebtedness  to  Ser- 
mon on  Mount,  327 ;  and  to  post-biblical 
literature,  it/id.  ;  authenticity  of  the 
Epistle,  354  et  seq.  ;  date,  3oS,  359  ;  his- 
toric surroundings,  3()0-o63  ;  genius,  363 
et  heq. ;  style.  3(i8  et  seq.  ;  topical  analy- 
sis, 369.  370 :  aim,  371  et  seq.  ;  chai-- 
acter,  372,  373 ;  the  valedictory  expres- 
sion of  Hel)rew  prophecy,  373  ;  literal 
version,  with  explanatory  notes,  373- 
401;  faith  and  works,  402,  408-410; 
Abraham's  exiimple,  411  et  seq.  ;  com- 
parison with  other  Apostolic  writings, 
413-415. 

Jeremiah — his  death  by  stoning,  referred  to, 
294. 

Jerusalem — "  the  centre  of  the  earth."  a 
Rabbinic  conceit,  345 ;  fall  of,  557-562 : 
iElia  Capitolina  built  upon  its  ruins, 
56^3 ;  its  fall  an  epoch  in  history,  (:62 ; 
Jerusalem  and  Sidein.  699.  700. 

Jerusalem,  the  New,  556;  legendary  detail, 
ibid.,  note. 

Jesus  Christ  (see  Christ). 

Jesus  son  of  Ananus,  his  warning  cry  and 
tragic  fate,  353. 

Jesus  son  of  Gamala,  same  as  Joshua  ben 
Gamala,  q.v. 

Jesus  son  of  Pandera.  a  disguised  reference 
to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Talmud.  352. 

Jesus  son  of  Sirach — author  of  Ecclesiasticus, 
a  work  well  known  to  James,  .327 ;  the 
book  prohibited  by  the  Rabbis,  ibid. 

Jews— detested  by  Gains  (Caligula),  13 ; 
Claudius  orders  their  expulsion  from 
Rome,  ibid.  ;  futility  of  the  edict,  39 ; 
not  involved  in  the  Ncroniau  jiersecu- 
tions  and  massacres,  41 ;  sworn  enemies 
of  the  Christians,  42;  proselytes  in  the 
Imperial  Palace,  ibid.  ;  proinii=e  Nero 
the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem,  ibid. ;  their 
religion  privileged  at  Rome,  43 ;  their 
malice,  the  secret  of  the  first  Christian 
persecution,  ibid. ;  patronised  bj-  Alex- 
ander the  Great,  162  :  befriended  by  the 
Ptolemie.s,  163  :  certain,  of  Alexandria, 
burned  alive,  2J)4 ;  revolt  in  Judoa,  476 
et  seq.  ;  its  spread  throu.uhout  Palestine, 
480  ;  epidemic  of  massacre,  481  et  seq. ; 
Josophus's  opinion  that  his  people  were 
ripe  for  destruction,  489,  521 ;  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  557,  5»j1  ;  ^-'.lia  Capitolina 
built  upon  its  ruins,  56^3;  Jews  denied 
admission,  ibid,  ;  their  religion  abro- 
gated, ibid, 

Jochanan  ben  Napuchah  and  his  comj)ro- 
mise,  165. 

Jochanan  ben  Zaccai  foretells  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple.  278. 

John — one  of  the  three  Pillar- Apostles,  417  ; 
his  religious  majority  synchronous  with 
the  insurrection  in  (Jaiilce,  420  :  a  key 
to  his  impetuous  spirit,  ibid.  ;  and  patri- 
otic bias,  421;  a  disciple  of  John  the 
:^ptist.  422  :  his  call  by  Jesus,  424  ;  his 
characteristics,  425;  ambitions  request 
of  his  mother,  430,  431  ;  his  intimacy 
with  Jesus,  432 ;  at  the  cross,  4:3^5 ;  en- 
trusted with  the  care  of  the  mother  of 


INDEX. 


731 


Jcsiis,  4.34 ;  at  the  sepulchro,  4".0  :  with 
"the   eleven,"    ibid.  ;    revisits   Galilee, 
437;  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  438; 
before  the  Sanhedrin.  ibid.  ;  saved  by  the 
interferenec  of  Gamaliel,  91  ;  scourged, 
yet   persisting  in  preaching   the  Word, 
ibid.  ;  mentioned  once  only  in  the  Paul- 
ine Epistles,  93;  his  Judaic  sympathies, 
94  et  seq. ;  absence  of  further  mention 
in  Scripture  till  at  I'atmos.  9(i ;  his  exile, 
97  eC  seq.;  his  work,  ibid,  and  102;  the 
Apocalypse  (q.v.)  of    i)iioi'  date  to  his 
Gospel  and  Kpistles  (q.v.),  ibid.  ;  legend- 
ary anecdotes,  108-110:  death  of  John, 
3'23  ;  his  extreme  old  age,  723. 
John,  Epistles  of,  the  last  utterance  of  Di- 
vine revelation,  63. 
John,  First  Epistle— its  object  and  outline, 
(i02 ;    contents,  (')04-()0(i ;    structnrai   pe- 
culiarities,   60() :     authenticity,    607    et 
seq.  ;  toi)ical  analysis,  literal  version  and 
eointnents,  (i07-()r)7. 
John,  Second   Epistle — its  authenticity  dis- 
cussed, 659  et  seq.  ;  Kyria,  to  whom  ad- 
dressed,  whether  an    appellative    or  a 
proper  name,  661-663.  0i6,  667;  topical 
analysis,  litci'al  translation   and  notes, 
668-673. 
John,   Third  Epistle — Gains,   to  whom  ad- 
dressed, 674;  object  and  aim,  (i75 ;  lit- 
eral translation  and  notes,  675-677  ;  sal- 
utation, ()77  et  seq. 
Josephus — inimical  to  the  Chiistians,  42 ;  a 
renegade  Pharisee,  43  ;  his  eulogy  of  the 
abandoned    Poppa?a,    43;    date    of    his 
writings,   124;    verbal  resemblances  to 
Peter's  Second   Epistle,  125 ;  his  use  of 
Rabbinic     Hagadoth,     126;      re-writes 
"Jewish  History*'   for  Roman  readers, 
169;    his   "Jewish   War"   originally  in 
Aramaic,  219  ;  the  untrustworthiness  of 
his  writings,  354 ;  his  impeachment  of 
the  priesthood,  396  ;  acts  as  Governor  of 
Gamala,  482  ;  his  military  services,  483  ; 
his    character,    484;    his    treatment  of 
Daniel's  prophecy  affecting  Rome.  501. 
Joshua  ben  Gamala  accptires  the  High  Priest- 
hood by  i)urchase,   3B0-363 ;  massacred 
by  his  co-religionists.  485,  527. 
Judah  the  Holy — the  comiuler  of  the  Mish- 
nah,  323  ;  biographical  anecdotes  from 
the  Talmud,  140.  461. 
Judaism — a  reiir/io  liciUi  at  Rome,  41 ;  friends 
at  court,   42  ;  inimical  to  Christianity, 
42  ;  as  understood  by  Philo  Juda;as,  196 ; 
its  spiiit  reanimated  by  secular  ins[)ira- 
tion,   203;    its  quasi  deification  of  the 
priesthood,  210  et  seq.  ;  abrogated,  56;i ; 
its  development'*,  .569  et  seq. 
Judas  of  (Talilee — his  insurrection,  420. 
Judo,  Epistle    of — work   of   a   non-ai)Ostolic 
writer,    61,    144;  freely   utilises  Jewish 
Ilaaadoth.    and    Apocryiihal   literature, 
ibiil. ;  compared  with  Second  Eiiistle  of 
Peti'r,  128  -131 ;     its    evident    iiriority 
thereto,  132-143  ;  story  of  the  Desposyni, 
his    grandsons,    143;     their    adv(>nture 
with  Domitinn,  144 ;  family  connexions  ; 
of  Jnde,  145-147 ;  compared  with  Paul,  ! 
149  et  seq.  ;  literal  version  and  conuncn-  ' 


tary,  149-152;  Ktyle  considered,  1.>T; 
structural  i)eculiarity,  Ibid.  ;  allusions  to 
seculaj-  literature,  154-156;  Its  aim  and 
object,  157  et  seq. 
Justin  Martyr — his  mistake  concerning  Si- 
mon Magus,  76,  .572;  his  C)urge  againt-t 
the  Jews  for  tampering  with  the  LXX., 
165  ;  his  statement  as  to  current  Jewish 
belief,  404  ;   and  respecting  Antichrist, 


562. 


K. 


Kabbalah— a  species  of  Rabbinic  exegesis, 

181,  491,  573.     {iSee  also  Gematria  and 

Isopsephia. ) 
Kapparah — the  substitutionary   sacrifice  of 

modern  Jews,  278  et  seq, 
Kedar— tents  of,  and  the  scattered  nation, 

100. 
Kenitos — their  part  in  the  Temple  services, 

:J30,  351. 
Kep/uLs-party  at  Corinth,  58.      (See  also  s.v. 

Peter.) 
Keren   Happnk,  represented  by  Amalthea's 

Horn  in  the  LXX.,  166. 
King — a  provincial  title  of  the  Emperors  of 

Rome,  107 ;  repugnant  to  the  Romans, 

494. 
Kitzur  Sh'lh — a  Kabbalistic  epitome,  quoted, 

200,  232,  454. 
Knowledge  and  Wisdom  compared  and  con 

trasted,  389. 
Koheleth  (Midrash)  and  the  story  of  Moses' 

terror  at  Sinai,  297. 
Korah — the    way    of,    153 ;    reproached    by 

Moses,  240. 
Kyria  in  Second  Epistle  of  John,  whether  an 

apijcllative  or  a   projier  name,  consid- 
ered, 661,  662,  G66,  667. 


L. 


Laodicea,  ecclcsi.astical  council,  117,  464. 

La  Scala,  the  traditional  retreat  of  John  at 
Patmos,  452. 

Last  words  (chronologically)  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, 466. 

Latest  historic  name  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  162. 

Law  of  Moses — as  regarded  by  Peter  and  by 
James,  62;  its  delivery  at  Sinai,  297; 
Rabbinic  legends  alluded  to  in  Hebrews 
and  Acts,  ibid. ;  further  detail  from  the 
Talmud,  298;  its  supersession,  ibid,  et 
seq. 

Legendary  traces  in  the  Scptuagint  Version, 
166. 

Lex  Papia  Pojipjea  and  its  connexion  with 
Roman  morals,  5. 

Liturgy — Scrijitiiral  use  of  the  word,  265  ;  its 
classic  meaning,  ibid. 

Locusta  the  pni.soner  a  paid  agent  of  Nero, 
15  ;  her  part  in  the  murder  of  Claudius, 
22. 

Luther — on  the  authenticity  of  the  Epistles, 
6">;  as  to  author.ship  of  Hebrews,  187- 
217;  endorses  the  .Jewish  opinion  con- 
cerning Melchizedek,  25(i;  ui)on  James, 


'3^ 


INDEX. 


a^fi  et  aeq. ;  on  Justification  by  Works, 
40'.>  et  seq.  ;  misquotes  Ilomaus  (iii.  28), 
415  ;  on  the  Apocalypse,  -193,   . 
Lysias,  his  timely  interference  on  behalf  of 
rnul,  13. 


jr. 


Afacrnbeep,  Books  of,  referred  to  in  Hebrews, 
'.m. 

Araimonides— his  Sroreh  Ncvochim,  quoted, 
•^'i\)\  the  Yad  Hachazakah,  704. 

Jlaraiuitha  explained,  492. 

•Marcion  the  Gnostic  and  Poly  carp,  455,  671. 

Marcionisin  a  perversion  of  Paul's  teaching, 
59. 

Marcu?,  the  first  Gentile  Bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem, 343. 

Marcus  Aurelius— his  view  of  Christianity, 
1U5  ;  his  writings  referred  to.  c64. 

Maria  del  Popolo,  the  church  of,  its  super- 
stitious connexion  with  Nero,  48. 

Maries,  the  three,  at  the  Cross,  4^^4. 

Mark,  the  Evangelist — referred  to  by  Peter, 
74 ;  his  indebtedness  to  Peter,  8o ;  in- 
timate with  Paul,  86;  interpreter  to 
Peter  at  lioine,  267;  accredited  with 
authorship  of  Apocalypse,  44S  ;  and  with 
the  founding  of  the  School  at  Alexan- 
dria, 179. 

Marriage — regarded  with  disfavour  at  Rome, 
5  ;  extreme  views,  7  ;  honoured  and  con- 
secrated by  Christianitj',  71,  VM ;  dis- 
paraged by  the  Essenes  (a  Jewish  sect), 
299  ;  the  Apostles  married,  423,  462. 

Martineau's  "  Hours  of  Thought"  quoted, 
11. 

Martyrdom,  era  of,  marked  by  the  Apoca- 
lypse, 471. 

M.xry,  the  hostess  of  the  Apostles  at  Jerusa- 
lem, .337. 

Matthew— his  mission  and  martyrdom,  55. 

Melaucthon  concerning  Hebrews  and  Paul, 

1S9. 
Melclm.edek— his  priesthood,  2-37  et  seq.; 
historical  account  confined  to  two  verses 
of  Genesis,  25"?  ;  traditional  details  from 
the  Jlidrash,  254  ;  as  regarded  by  Philo 
JudiBus,  2.^5  ;  of  unknown  parentage, 
ibid.;  attempted  identifications,  ibid,  et 
seq.;  regarded  as  a  type,  250  et  seq.;  his 
humanity,  258;  his  relative  greatness, 
259  ;  his  priesthood  sriperior  to  that  of 
the  Levites,  261  ;  but  inferior  to  that  of 
Christ,  262. 
Mess.ilina.  wife  of  Claudius,  15  ;  mother  of 
r.ritannicus  and  Octavia.  17 ;  her  at- 
tfmpt><  upon  Nero's  life,  18  ;  her  wretch- 
ed end,  ibid. 
MesHah  greater    than  the  Patriarchs,  etc., 

MessinhH,  the  false,  476,  5(i3. 

Metatron— a  Il.ibbinic  anticipation  of  Mea- 

piah,  i;5.x  2."j7,  ;i52, 
Michad  and  the  body  of  Moses,  130,  140, 151, 

151  et  aeq. 
Midrash  Koheleth— a  comment  on  Ecclesias- 

tes,  297,  352. 
Milton's  "  Parudisc  Lost  "—quoted,  652. 


Minim— the  appellative  of  Christians  in  the 
Talmud  and  Rabbinic  writing.-,  352. 

Ministering  Angels — their  office  at  Sinai, 
298. 

Montanists  and  post-baptismal  sins,  285. 

Montanus,  the  nominal  founder  of  an  early 
Christian  sect,  184.     (See  Montanists.) 

Moreh  Nevochim — a  work  of  Maimonides, 
3o9. 

Moses— legend  of  his  death,  151 ;  an  apocry- 
phal work  entitled  the  "  Ascension  of  Mo- 
ses," quoted  by  Jude,  154  ;  as  the  good 
shepherd,  an  anecdote  from  the  Midrash, 
461. 

Motto  of  the  Alexandrian  School,  ISO. 


N. 


Nazarenes — a  Judfeo-Christian  sect,  570. 

Nero — son  of  Agrippina  and  Ahenobarbus, 
15 ;  his  parents  banished,  17 ;  and  he 
consigned  to  care  of  his  aunt  Domitia, 
ibid.;  his  bad  training,  ibUl.;  his  life 
unsuccessfully  attempted  by  the  Em- 
press Messalina,  ibid.;  who  shortly  after- 
wards is  assassinated,  18;  his  mother 
then  marries  the  Emperor  her  uncle, 
ibid  ;  whose  daughter  is  betrothed  to 
Nero,  19 ;  the  ambitious  intrigues  of 
his  mother,  21 ;  she  poisons  her  husband, 
22;  and  places  Nero  upon  the  throiie, 
23;  under  the  tutelage  of  Bnrrus  anil 
Seneca  the  earlier  part  of  his  reign  is 
favourable,  24  ;  their  reprehensible  laxity 
permits  a  liaison  of  the  youthful  Nero 
with  Acte,  a  Grecian  odalisque,  25  ;  ho 
quarrels  with  Agi'ippina,  26  ;  poisons 
his  brother-in-law,  the  rightful  heir  to 
the  throne,  28 ;  contracts  a  mesalliance 
with  Poppaaa  Sabina,  the  wife  of  a 
boon  companion,  ibid.;  who  prompted  1  is 
worst  crimes,  including  the  murder  of 
his  mother,  29,  31  ;  and  eventually  met 
her  own  death  from  a  kick  by  Nero,  33  ; 
suspected  of  the  burning  of  Rome,  .34 ; 
but  he  charges  the  incendiarism  upon 
the  Christians,  39,  40  ;  and  mercilessly 
persecutes  them,  44  et  seq.;  with  cruel 
Ecstheticism,  46  ;  making  them  to  act  as 
the  tableaux  vivaiits  of  his  realistic  plays, 
47 ;  justly  regarded  as  the  Antichrist, 
ibid.;  saluted  as  '•  the  Saviour  of  the 
"WORLD,"'  48  ;  the  Romans  revolt,  49,  50  ; 
he  ignominiously  flees  the  city,  50  ;  and 
commits  suicide,  51. 

Neropolis— its  connexion  with  the  rebuild- 
ing of  Rome,  .35. 

New  Year's  Day  among  Jews,  and  its  solem- 
nities, 276  et  seq. 

Nicene  Creed — niisrcml  in  the  churches,  225. 

Nicoden^us,  Gospel  of— quoted  or  alluded  to, 
91,525. 

Nicolas  the  deacon,  4.57. 

Nicolaitaus — incur  the  indignation  of  John, 
157;  their  origin  and  development,  ibid.; 
the  error  of  Irenajus  as  to  their  founder, 
457,  506. 

Nishmath  Chajim — quoted  for  a  remarkable 
Messianic  inference,  229. 


INDEX. 


733 


0. 


Octavia— daughter  of  Claiulius.  It ;  married 
to  Nero,  li) ;  i)rescnt  when  Nero  poisoned 
her  brother,  27 ;  banished  to  Panda- 
taria,  o-^  ;  assassinated  by  order  of  her 
husband,  ibid. 

Onias'  Tenii)le  at  Lcontopolis — thought  by 
some  to  be  tlie  "  Temple"  referred  to  in 
Hebrews.  214,  2G2. 

Origen— the  greatest  of  the  Christian  Fathers, 
ISO;  his  peculiar  exegesis,  1!S1  ei  seq.; 
his  opinion  concerning  Hebrews,  ISH  ; 
Epistle  of  James,  354  ;  his  account  of  the 
banishment  of  John,  4G8  ;  and  Peter's 
crucifixion,  679. 


P. 


Paetus  Thrasea,  a  noble  Stoic,  9  ;  put  to  death 
by  order  of  Nero,  33;  his  character 
sketched  by  Tacitus,  ()28. 

Paganism — its  decadence,  9.  • 

Pantheon  at  Rome,  13. 

Papyrus — the  2Kiper  of  John's  Epistle,  609. 

Paraclete — its  occurrence  in  Rabbinic  writ- 
ings, 386  ;  its  classic  sense  and  Patristic 
use,  613. 

Paradise — its  symbolic  application  by  the 
Rabbis,  181  et,  seq. 

Parashah  and  Haphtarah,  as  read  in  Apos- 
tolic times,  identified,  164. 

Parousia,  the,  of  early  Christian  anticipa- 
tion, 126. 

Pascal — noteworthy  saying  of,  quoted,  3S1. 

Piitmos — the  exile  home  of  John,  452  et 
seq. 

Patristic  views  as  to  authorship  of  Hebrews, 
659-697. 

Paul — humanely  treated  by  the  politarchs  of 
Thessalonica,  13 ;  protected  from  the 
Jews  at  Corinth  by  Gallio,  brother  of 
Seneca,  Hid.;  delivered  from  the  plots 
of  the  Sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem  by  Lysias 
and  Festus,  a'&iV/.,-  his  appeal  to  Caesar, 
his  residence  in  Rome,  14  ;  indications 
of  Alexandrianism  in  his  Epistles,  60. 

Pclla — the  refuge  of  the  early  Christians, 
445  ;  its  geographical  position,  473  ;  mas- 
sacre of  Jews  at,  480  ;  its  present  identi- 
lication,  529. 

Penates,  or  household  gods,  19. 

Peregrinus,  death  of — a  tract  by  Lucian  il- 
lustrative of  the  Neronian  persecutions, 
298  et  seq. 

Peter— short  sketch  of  his  history,  72-73  ; 
autobiographic  touches  in  his'  Epistles, 
73  et  seq. ;  his  daughter  Petronilla,  74  ; 
his  wife's  martyrdom,  75 ;  further  de- 
tails from  tradition,  75-77  ;  his  connex- 
ion with  Rome,  78,  679,  680  ;  his  cruci- 
fixion, 78-79  ;  his  primacy  considered, 
678  et  seq. 

Peter.  First  Epistle  of— approximate  date, 
79  ;  characteristic  features,  80  et  seq.  ; 
Gospel  reminiscences,  82-85  ;  influence 
of  Paul  and  James,' 85-87  :  originality 
of   the  author,   87  ;    bubject-malier,  88- 


91  ;  Gospel  to  the  dead,  91-04  ;  concilia- 
tory tone  of  the  Epistle,  94-9(i ;  histori- 
cal circumstances,  97  et  seq.  ;  key-note 
of  its  teaching,  98  ;  to  whom  addressed, 
99  et  seq.  ;  acquaintance  with  Book  of 
Daniel,  101  ;  topical  analysis,  102,  111; 
acqiuiintance  with  Book  of  Proverljs, 
112  ;  closing  admonitioii.«,  113  ;  saluta- 
tion, ibid. 

Peter,  Second  Epistle  of— its  distinguishing 
peculiarities,  114;  canonicity,  115  et 
seq.  ;  external  evidence  as  to  authenti'-- 
ity,  116  et  seq.  ;  Patristic  testimony,  117- 
118  ;  outline  of  contents,  120  ;  singular- 
ities of  style  and  expression,  120-124  ; 
points  of  similarity  to  Josephus,  124- 
126  ;  contrasts,  126  etseq.  ;  coincidences 
with  Jude,  129-132 ;  authenticity  dis- 
cussed, 133  ei  seq.  ;  internal  evidence. 
134  ;  date,  ibid. ;  superiority  to  other 
contemj)orary  writings,  135  ;  summing 
up  of  evidence,  136  et  seq.  ;  new  trans- 
lation, with  running  comment,  137-142. 

Petronilla,  a  daughter  of  Peter,  74. 

Philemon,  probable  date  of  Epistle  to,  7, 

Philo  Judaius — tlie  most  celebrated  of  the 
Alexandrian  writers,  169  ;  his  ignorance 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  ibid.  ;  his 
views  and  opinions,  170 ;  his  priestly 
origin  and  family  connexions,  ibid.  ;  his 
wife  and  her  noteworthj^  saying,  171; 
his  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and  his  political 
services,  ibid.  ;  not  a  Christian,  as  tra- 
ditionally reported,  172 ;  but  helped  to 
pave  the  way  for  Christianity  by  his  lit- 
erary labours,  ibid. ;  his  peculiar  exege- 
sis of  Holy  Writ,  ibid.  ;  his  intiuence  on 
Apostolic  writings,  175-177  ;  his  phi- 
losophy embodied  in  the  Alexandrian 
Schot>l  {see  s.v.  Alexandria),  178;  its 
part  in  the  development  of  Revelation, 
179  et  seq.  ;  his  inrtuence  on  the  writer 
of  Hebrews,  198-199  ;  specimens  of  Phi- 
Ionian  allegory,  686-688;  Philo's  views 
about  the  Logos,  688,  689;  coincidences 
between  the  works  of  Philo  and  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ()97-699. 

Phinehas,  the  seventh  from  Jacob.  152. 

Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eli — referred  to,^:63. 

Phoenix  accredited  by  Tacitus,  the  Roman 
historian,  68  ;  and  iised  illustratively  by 
Clemens,  ibid. 

Phylacteries — their  exalted  sanction,  569. 

Pilate — the  story  of  a  letter  to  Tiberius  con- 
cerning '•  the  Crucifixion,"  12. 

Pilgrimage  feasts  of  Judai.sm— Hillel's  deci- 
sion respecting,  325;  taken  occasion  ft 
for  revisiting  Jerusalem,  338. 

Pirke  Rabbi  Eliezer  on  the  death  of  Isaac, 
292. 

Plato— a  notable  example  of  ethnic  inspira- 
tion, 184 ;  his  infiuence  on  Philo  Ju- 
daeup.  ibid.  ;  and  indirectly  on  Christian- 
ity, ibid.  ;  his  works  quoted  or  alluded 
to,  122,  203.  891. 

Plautus'  "  Epedicus"'— quoted,  386. 

Pliny— letter  to  Trajan,  79,  100  ;  his  views 
of  Christianity.  105. 

Pompeii— its  relics,  2 ;  its  sarcastic  grapiti, 
98. 


■34 


INDEX. 


rom|)onia  Grivcina— her  possible  connexion 
witli  Christianity,  V.h 

Pompi-y's  desecration  of  the  Temple  at  Jeru- 
salem, 20(5. 

Poppa-a  .Sabina,  wife  of  Marcus  Otho— trans- 
ferred to  Nero,  2!) ;  her  baneful  influ- 
ence. :i<i :  a  proselyte  to  Judaism,  42  ; 
possibly  connected  with  the  perscciitiou 
of  the  Christians.  48;  eulogised  by  Jo- 
sephus,  though  Tacitus  and  Suetonius 
ore  unaliloto  praise  her,  4^^ ;  premature 
d^ath  from  a  kick  by  her  husband,  33. 

l*.>^t  tjaptismal  sins,  245. 

Prayer— effieacy  of,  400. 

l"ray«r-Book— its  acknowledgment  of  Paul 
as  the  writer  of  Hebrews,  181)  et  xeq. 

Primacy  of  Peter  considered,  ()78  et  seq. 

Pi-odigality  of  Imperial  Rome,  4,  108. 

Prosi.'lytes  at  the  Court  of  Nero,  42  ;  inimical 
to  Christianity,  43;  injurious  to  Israal, 
477. 

Proverbs,  Book  of — familiar  to  Peter,  108, 
112. 

Ptolemy  Philadelphus  and  the  Septuagint, 
ir»3"  et  seq. 

Pudens,  a  senator  of  Rome,  74. 

Punishment— its  disciplinary  aim,  111. 

Pytliagorean  mystciies,  175. 


Q- 

QuadratHS  and  his  reminiscences  of  John  the 
Divine,  402. 

(.(uartodecimans — observers  of  the  14th  Nisan 
as  Kaster,  450. 

Quirinus  (Cyrenius)  and  the  insurrection  in 
Galilee,  420. 

Quotations  from  Greek  poets  in  the  New 
Test  iment,  150  ;  from  Rat)binical  writ- 
ings (xetJ  s.v.  Talmud,  Midrashim,  etc.). 


R. 


Rabbinic  account  of  the  pattern  of  the  Tab- 
eniacle,  203  et  seq. 

Rabbinism  defined  and  estimated,  420. 

i:<n:a — its  interpretation  and  use;,  387,  403. 

Ransom  —  mistaken  notion  of  the  early 
Church,  200,271. 

Rcehabites  in  the  Temple  service,  330,  351. 

Reilumption— the  views  of  Peter  and  Paul 
compared,  87-!)0. 

Renan— on  the  burning  of  Rome,  34;  on  the 
authenticity  of  I.  Peter,  80  ;  11.  Peter, 
114. 

Rei)entance— the  first  and  earliest  lesson  of 
the  Gospel,  241  ;  its  imi)ort!iucc,  401. 
liesh  (inliWuty  "Head  of  the  Captivity/' 
3<KI,  301. 

nightoousness— dcftnod  by  Paul,  207;  by 
Apollos,  ibid. 

Ilol)e.«]>iern!'H  housekeeper — a  Neronian  paral- 
lel to,  51. 

Rich  and  poor  pnjvidentially  tested,  380. 

Romans.  Epistle  to— its  date,  etc.,  359. 

liome — its  abnormal  depravity,  1  et  seq. ;  its 
wealth,  prodiprality,  etc.,  2;  preponder- 
ant; of  ita  slave  population,  2  ;  its  fam- 


ily life,  5 ;  literature  and  art,  G :  public 
amusements,  0  ;  its  Senate,  etc.,  7  et  seq.; 
its  moribund  religion,  8  et  seq. ;  its  con- 
tact with  Christianity,  12 ;  its  golden 
qxiinquemiircm.,  25  ;  the  burning  of.  34- 
38 ;  St.  Peter's  connexion  with,  77  et 
seq.  ;  forecasts  of  its  downfall,  401 ;  fam- 
ine at,  511 ;  pestilence,  512;  Rabbinic 
legend  of  the  founding  of,  531 ;  burning 
of  the  Temple  of  Jupiter,  536;  its  over- 
throw as  regarded  by  Esdnis,  ibid.  ;  Pa- 
ti'istic  evidence  respecting  Peter's  visit, 
tu\),  080. 
PtubeUiis  Plaiitus  —  his  assassination  by 
Nero,  15. 


S. 


Rnbbath  of  Sabbatism,  270. 

vSakya  Mouni  (Buddha) — his  mission,  184. 

Salem  and  Jerusalem,  «0'.)-700. 

Salome — her  ambitious  request,  430  et  seq. 

Samniael,  the  Angel  of  Death,  232. 

Sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem  — its  conspiracy 
against  Paul,  13  ;  its  libel  of  the  Chris- 
tians, 42. 

Satan — once  regarded  as  the  recipient  of  Ihe 
world's  ransom,  209,  271 ;  Rabbinic  con- 
ceit as  to  the  abeyance  of  his  prerogative 
on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  270. 

Saturnalia  of  Rome,  20. 

Sectarianism  and  its  developments,  426  et 
seq. 

Seneca— made  co-tutor  with  Burrus  of  the 
youthful  Nero,  19  ;  his  benign  inHucnce 
over  his  pui))l,  24 ;  his  untimely  end,  'i^i  ; 
his  o})inions  quoted,  028. 

Sepher  Ua  Chayim— a  Ral)l)inical  tr;  aLisc  en 
cschatology,  quoted,  399. 

Septuagint  version  of  Old  Testament — un- 
dertaken at  instance  of  Ptolemy  Phil- 
adelphus, Kvi ;  its  bearing  upoii  the 
GentilQ  world,  ibid.  ;  upon  Jews  and 
Judaism,  104;  the  anniversary  of  ita 
l)ul)lication  kept  as  a  festival  by  the 
Alexandrians,  ibid.  ;  as  a  fast  by  Pales- 
tinian Jews,  1()5 ;  Justin  Martyrs  com- 
plaint respecting,  ibid.  ;  its  mistransla- 
tion, 166  et  seq.;  its  local  bias,  107; 
regaifled  by  some  as  an  inspired  trans- 
lation, 457. 

Sermon  on  the  Mount^compared  with 
James's  Epistle,  300,  379. 

Shabbath  Shabbathon — an  appellative  of  the 
Day  of  Atonement,  270. 

Shakespeare — Tiinoii  of  Athens  (iii.  6), 
(luoted,  0.32 ;  Ant,  and  Cleop.  (ii.  1), 
quoted,  051. 

Shechinah — the  sole  prerogative  of  Israel, 
282 ;  a  Jewish  name  for  the  Messiah, 
385. 

Shema  Israel— the  keynote  of  Judai.sra,  387, 
404. 

Sheinoth  Rabba — a  Jewish  commentary, 
() noted,  380. 

Sheshach — a  Scriptural  pseudonj'm  for  Ba- 
bel, 541. 

Sibylline  Oracles— their  use  at  Rome,  41 ; 
their  forecast  of  the  downfall  of  Rome, 


INDEX. 


735 


490  el  seq.  ;  their  illuetratlon  of  tho 
Apocalypse,  52",2,  (iSl, 

Silas  or  SilvanuH — his  claims  as  a  New  Tes- 
tament author,-  214, 

Silanian  law,  7. 

Binicon  of  Mizpch  —one  of  the  earliest  writers 
of  theTalmn.l.  277. 

Simon  Matrns— the  legend  of  his  contest  with 
Peter,  16. 

Simiin  son  of  Giora— a  renowned  leader  in 
the  Jewish  war,  481  et  seq.,  4N5,  487. 

Simon  son  of  Onias,  tho  model  High  Priest, 
703  et  seq. 

Riraony  of  the  pricfthood,  363, 

.Simon  Zelotes — his  death  by  crncifixion,  5f). 

Birach,  the  son  of— his  literary  influence  on 
the  Epistle  of  James,  :Wi. 

Slavery — its  prevalence  at  Rome,  2  ;  Jews 
rarely  enslaved,  and  «"hy,  107. 

Socrates,  the  Athenian  philosopher — his  in- 
spiration, 184. 

Socrates  the  historian — his  charge  against 
the  Nestorian  sect,  «)3S  et  seq. 

Solfatara— its  suggestive  connexion  with 
"  the  land  for  burning  "  of  Hebrews  vi. 
8,  249,  520. 

Solomon,  the  wisdom  of,  l(i9. 

Stoicism — its  prevalence  in  Apostolic  times, 
9  ;  its  premium  on  suicide,  if?id.  ;  its  de- 
cadence, 11;  compared  with  Christianity, 
ibid.  (See  also  (Jato,  Cleanthes,  Seneca, 
and  Zeno. ) 

Stoning  of  Jeremiah,  294. 

Suetonius — his  idea  of  Christianity,  105,  477. 

Suicide,  the  panacea  of  Stoicism,  9;  its  fre- 
quency, ibid.  ;  its  varied  nomenclature, 
10, 


T. 


Tabernacle— its  Divine  original.  203 ;  refer- 
ence thereto  (anil  not  to  the  Temple)  by 
the  author  of  Hebrews,  2!)S. 

Tableaux  vivatits  of  Roman  plays,  47. 

Tables  of  the  Law — their  traditional  sizeand 
weight.  2(58. 

Tacitus — his  account  of  the  Roman  senate, 
T;  of  Nero,  32;  his  view  of  Christianity, 
97  et  seq.,  105;  his  description  of  tlie 
Jews  of  his  time,  417. 

Talmud  of  Babylon — a  compend  of  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  elders  (A[att.  xv.  2),  its 
subject-matter,  32.3  el  seq.  ;  its  compiler, 
ibid.     (See  Index  of  Quotations,  etc.) 

Tanchuma,  Midrash— a  Jewish  comment, 
quoted,  23.'3-:)77,  2(i0, 

Targums  or  Chaldce  Paraphrases  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  cited  or  alluded 
to.  7.5,  151,  11)8.  227,  2.30,  210,  242,  253, 
25«,  207,  208,  2&G,  293,  29G,  514,  515,  ObO, 
699, 

Tartarus — a  classic  term  made  use  of  by 
Peter,  121,  140, 

Te  Deums  strangely  associated  with  atitos  da 
fe,  389. 

Temple  of  Onias  at  Leontopolis,  nfac-slmile 
of  the  Judaean  temple,  213  el  seq.,  262. 

Ten  Tribes  of  Israel  never  to  be  restored  to 
Palestine,  375. 

TertuUian — concerning  Nero  and  tho  perse- 


cution of  the  Christians,  d.'i,  79,  97 ;  his 
mention  of  Jnde  the  earliest  on  record, 
143 ;  a<;creditR  Raniabas  with  writing 
''  Hebrews,"  214  ;  his  pronounced  views 
on  celibacy,  423. 

Testament  of  tho  Twelve  ratri.irchs,  quoted 
or  referred  to,  208,  378,  393,  450,  570, 
021,  682,  684. 

Tetragrammaton,  the  ineffable  name  Jeho- 
vah, 279. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia — his  rcicctirn  of  tho 
Petrine  Epistle.'?,  80,  117;  ignores  the 
Apocalypse,  465  ;  unfavourable  to  John's 
Epistles,  (KiO. 

Thomas  the  Apostle  of  India,  56, 

Tiberius  Ctcsar — his  character  sketched  by 
Suetonius,  13  ;  the  tragic  end  of  his 
family,  15. 

Tiberius  Procurator  of  Palestine — his  rela- 
tion to  Philo,  42  ;  made  Pra-fect  of  Alex- 
andria, 481 ;  an  apostate  Jew,  ibid. 

Tillin,  Midrash,  a  Rabbinic  commentary  on 
Psalms,  229,  2:^2. 

Titus— his  acquaintance  with  Nero,  27  ;  the 
conqueror  of  Judiua,  549;  his  grant  of 
land  to  Josephus  the  historian,  557 ; 
blockades  Jerusalem,  559;  anxious  to 
preserve  the  Ten)i>le,  ibid.;  his  purpose 
to  destroy  Christianity  with  Judaism, 
ihid.;  the  destruction  of  the  city.  5t>0  ; 
Josephus  eulogises  him,  but  tlH>  Tal- 
mudist  sbrand  his  name  with  infamy, 
ibid.,  note. 


U. 


Unity  of  God— its  prc-eminonce  in  Juda- 
ism, 387,  404  ;  not  uniformity,  159. 

Unpardonable  sins  from  a  Rabbinic  point  of 
view,  653, 

Unstrung  bow,  a  forcible  metajihor.  4r(0. 

U.voriousuess  of  the  Roman  Emperors,  15. 


V, 


Vehmgericht,  the,  referred  to,  476. 
:  Veil  of    the    Temple — its  nuiieri.il,    dimen- 
I  sions,  etc.,  2fi6. 

\  Vespasian — his  mir.aeles,  550;  h is  4ii story  elu- 
cidative of  revelation,  550-55^^.  • 

Victoriuus  of  Pettau— his  interpretation  olf 
j         the  Apocalypse,  516. 
'  Vine,  the — an    early    ecclesiastical    legend, 
j  456. 

Virgin  Mary— her  tomb  at  Ephe.sus,  4.35. 

Visitation  of  tlie  sick  (Chiuch  Service),  rc- 
i  f erred  to,  139,  400. 

Vulgate  version,  293. 


W. 


Wills  unknown  to  the  Jews,  borrowed  fnun 
Roman  usage,  272. 

Wisdom,  Book  of — its  Alexandrian  origin, 
169;  coincidences  with  the  I'auhne  Epis- 
tles, 185  et  seq.;  references,  etc.,  tabu- 
lated (see  Index  of  Quotations). 


736 


INDEX. 


^Yo^ld— condition  of,  in  Apostolic  times,  1 
€t  ieq.;  compared  with  the  Church,  70 
€t  ieq.;  state  when  Jerusalem  was  de- 
stroyed, 488  et  seq. 


Xcnophon,  the  physician  of  Claudiufs  22. 
Xeiioiihon'a  Mjemorabilia,  378. 


Y. 


Yad  Hacharnkah,  a  digest  of  the  Talmud, 

quoted,  704. 
Yalkut    Chadash,   a    Rabbiuic    mlBcellany, 

quoted,  2*3,  6^2. 


Talkut    Shimoni,   a    Rabbinic    miscellany, 
quoted,  223,  39W,  556. 


Zabdia  or  Zebedee— his  social  status,  419  et 
seq. ;  his  denth,  423. 

Zachaiiah  the  sou  of  Baruch  -  his  massacre, 
4S5. 

Zealots,  a  political  faction,  the  "Home- 
Rulers  "  of  Jewry,  392,  397,  479,  512. 

Zechariah,  the  son  of  Berachiah — the  refer- 
ence in  Matthew  to,  probably  an  erro- 
neous gloss,  ::^(i8 ;  his  murder,  525. 

Zeno.  the  Stoic  philosopher,  referred  to,  9. 

Zerubbabel,  Temple  of.  266. 

Zohar.  a  noted  Kabbalistic  work,  referred  to, 
297,  423,  630. 

Zuk — the  destination  of  the  scapegoat,  278. 


PASSAGES  OF  SCPJPTUEE  QUOTED  OE 
KEFEPJIED  TO. 


Genesis. 

Genesis 

{continued). 

Exodus  (continned). 

i.    1      P 

.177 

xxxiv.  49 

384 

xix.  18 

297,  298 

2 

2H0 

XXXV  ii.    9 

520 

XX.    5 

104 

6 

141 

xl.    8 

139 

32 

297 

14 

378 

xli.  12 

i;i9 

22 

274 

ii.  17 

211 

15, 

16 

1.39 

xxi.    6 

282 

21 

()87 

xlvii.    9 

96,  644 

xxii.  22-24 

379 

iii.    5 

140 

31 

292 

xxiii.    7 

410 

IS 

249 

xlviii.    2 

292 

20 

1.50 

iv.    4 

167, 

643 

14,1 

7-20  292 

33 

274 

7 

086 

xlix.    1 

103 

xxiv.    3-7 

274 

8-10 

291 

10 

166 

5 

275 

10 

291,207,395, 

19 

292 

G-8 

101 

513 

1.24 

105 

7 

275 

V.  24 

291 

26 

293 

8 

101,  656 

vi.    2 

131, 

139 

9-11 

167 

3 

393 

Exodus. 

10 

167 

3-5 

394 

ii.    1 

166 

XXV.    8 

167 

6 

167 

14 

293 

16-21 

267 

8 

107 

iii.    1 

167 

31-37 

265 

» 

291 

5 

139 

40 

263 

vii.  11 

141 

6 

297 

xxvi.    6 

282 

24 

522 

14 

383 

31-35 

243,  617 

xiv.  18,  lU 

252, 

253 

iv.    6 

\m 

36,  37 

266 

XV.    0 

289,387,411 

22 

297 

xxviii.    1 

240 

9 

088 

24 

167 

36 

450 

9,  10 

272 

V.    2 

176 

xxix.    4 

271 

15 

6S7 

vi.  12, 

15 

160 

9 

262 

xvi.    4 

6t)3 

vii.    3 

234 

16 

274 

xvii.    1 

700 

ix.  22 

517 

21 

285 

7 

292 

X.  21 

297 

3(5 

225 

Ki 

687 

xii. 

271 

38-42 

262 

xviii.    (i 

687 

22 

275 

XXX.    6 

700 

12 

108 

3() 

103 

10 

700 

xix.    3 

377 

xiii.  18 

l(i6 

20 

286 

21 

152 

19 

293 

xxxi.    8 

269 

xxii.  12 

411 

xiv.  19 

150 

xxxiii.  13 

274 

16 

6S9 

xvi.  16, 

32 

267 

xxxiv.    7 

270 

17 

242 

33 

267 

xl.    5 

700 

xxiii.    4 

292 

as. 

34 

267 

9,  10 

275 

XXV.    9 

387 

xvii.    1- 

2.-i4 

2.3-30 

266 

16 

167 

Leviticcs. 

xxvi.  24 

292 

xix.    1-6 

297 

iv.    3 

240 

xxvii.  35 

296 

3 

167 

12 

300 

39 

292 

4 

529 

V.    3 

379 

xxviii.    8 

296 

5 

SA 

11-13 

274 

13 

292 

5, 

6 

95 

vi.  13-10,20  262 

xxxi.  42 

240 

6 

84,  104 

16 

702 

xxxii.  10 

2!»2. 

687 

10 

274 

19-22 

262 

24,  etc 

177 

10, 

11 

271 

30 

300 

xxxiil.  18 

699 

16 

297 

vii.  12  * 

300-302 

47 


/  y 


PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE 


Leviticcs  {contimied). 

Deuteronomy. 

I.  Samttel. 

vui.    fi 

285 

i.  13 

389 

ii,    8 

396 

30 

275,  285 

iv.  12 

297 

xii,    6 

234 

ix.    7 

240 

24 

298 

XV.  12 

1(56 

X.    9 

271 

V.    9 

393 

22 

282,283, 

10 

202 

vi,    4 

387,  405 

xviii,  11 

293 

xi. 

271 

ix.  19 

297 

xix.  10, 

12 

293 

xiv.     (-6 

275 

X.    2 

268 

xx.  30 

1(57 

4,  5 

479 

2,5 

207 

xxviii.    6 

224 

XV.    5 

274 

12 

380 

8 

271 

16 

234 

II. 

Samuel. 

10,  17 

131 

xi.  14 

395 

v,    6 

69!) 

xvi. 

271,  701 

xiv.    1 

226 

vii.  14 

226,  227 

2,13 

279 

XV.  17 

282 

viii.    2 

525 

4 

280,  330 

xvii.    2-7 

2S6 

xii.  14 

385 

»i,  11 

270 

xvi.i.  15 

234 

xiii.  23 

253 

8-10 

278 

XX.    5 

274 

xvii.  34 

293 

12-lG 

270 

x.xi.  16 

273 

xxiii.  20 

293 

14 

201 

22,  23 

301 

17 

279 

23 

107 

I.  Kings. 

18 

700 

xxiii.  14 

166 

iii.  11, 

12 

376 

19 

101 

19 

352 

vi.  22 

700 

24 

702 

xxiv.  14,  15 

395 

vii.  49 

265 

26,28 

274 

XXV.    4 

106 

viii.    9 

267 

27 

300 

2(i 

271 

63 

274 

30 

276 

xxvi.    2 

383 

xiii.    7 

294 

31 

27(5 

5 

306 

22 

525 

xvii.    5 

271 

■17 

377 

xvii.    1 

401 

11 

274 

xxviii.  10 

385 

22, 

23 

293 

11,12 

202 

35 

315 

xviii. 

399 

xxi. 

2e5 

315 

2()8 

4, 

13 

294 

7,13,14  258 

xxix.  18 

296 

21 

377 

10 

202 

23 

250 

42 

401 

17 

202 

xxxi.    6,  8 

300 

xix.    8. 

13 

294 

xxii.    2 

202 

21 

264 

10 

294 

5 

271 

xxxii.    5 

629 

16 

62 1 

C 

024 

8 

166,  231 

XX.  11 

166 

9 

C53 

10,11 

393 

xxiii.  26 

294 

xxiii.  10 

383 

11 

393,  529 

xxiv.    5.  9 

266 

35 

213,221,287 

II, 

Kings. 

xxvi.  29 

395 

40 

987 

i.    9, 

14 

427 

43 

226,  227 

10 

625 

NUMBEEB. 

xxxiii. 

514 

iii.  22 

510 

vi. 

271 
271 
626 
393 

1,3 

297 

iv,  14 

293 

3 

2 

231 

35-37 

293 

viii.  21 

36 

287 

ix,  20 

370 

xi.  29 

xxxiv.    6 

686 

X.  15,  ^i 

330 

38 
xil.    7 

426 

Joshua. 

xi,    7 
xii.    2 

91 

245 

8 

167 

i.    5 

300 

XV.    9 

386 

xiv.  14 

108 

8 

165 

xvi.  15 

274 

28-30 

234 

V.  15 

139 

xvii,  14 

234 

XV.  .30 

653 

X.    3 

253 

xxi,  12, 

13 

525 

XVi.-XViii. 

240 

20 

251 

xxiii.  29 

555 

xvi.  -,£2 
•1? 

295 
700 

xiii.  22 
23 

75,  167 
9(5 

I,  Chkonicles. 

xvii.  10 

268 

xxi,  45 

293 

ii.  55 

330 

12 

2f)2 

xxiv.  30 

16(5 

iv. 

514 

xviii.    7 

270 

32 

293 

xxi,  13 

287 

22 

621 

xxiii.  13 

262 

22.  2-3,  20  259 

Judges.                  | 

xxviii,  20 

300 

xix.    «; 
XX.    1-13 

275 
271 

2:^4 

V.    4 

19 
vi.    2 

297 
555 
294 

22 

xxix.  15 

23 

514 
293 
227 

13 

151 

ix.    4 

201 

II.  Chronict.es. 

xxix. 

101 

xiii,    8 

245 

iv.    8, 

19 

2()6 

xxxi.    0 

75 

xiv.    6 

293 

17 

249 

22-24 

274 

xv.ii.    fi 

386 

v.  10 

267 

xxxii.  12 

167 

xix.    10,  11 

699 

xxiv.  20-22 

394 

QUOTED    OR    REFERRED   TO. 


739 


IT.  Chronicles  {contlmted).  \ 

PfiATiTVTS  {continued).          \ 

Proverbs  {continued). 

XXVI.  1(^21 

210. 

xliv.  23 

301 

xiii.    3 

378 

19 

2(i<.) 

xlv. 

227 

xvi.  27 

.':67 

xxix.  22 

274 

(5 

510 

xvii.    9 

112 

XXXV.    3 

268 

(i, 

7 

227 

15 

410 

xlvi.    5 

291 

xix.    3 

3>2 

EZRi 

. 

1     5 

272 

xxi.  10 

393 

ii.  61,  62 

258 

16- 

20 

389 

xxiii.  27 

166 

lii.    2-5 

389 

34 

3(57 

Nehemiah.                I 

Ivii.    5 

2.';6 

XXV.  14 

1.51 

iv.    5 

401 

lix.  15 

399 

xxvi.  11 

141 

vii.  63,  64 

258 

Ixviii.  17 

230,  650 

27 

387 

X.  38 

25i) 

28 

27(5 

xxvii.  21 

112 

xi.  22 

162 

Ixix.    2 

289 

xxviii.  21 

296 

Ixxi. 

330 

XXX.  12 

3(57 

Esther.                 | 

l.xxii.  13 

39() 

13 

378 

Ix.  19,  22 

525                 1 

Ixxiv.  19 

512 

Ixxvi.    2 

506 

Eccl-esiastes. 

Job 

Ixxviii.    2 

181 

v.    2 

367.  .378 

i.    6 

22(5 

Ixxix.    5 

286 

X.    8 

345,  352 

iv.  18 

274,  383 

Ixxxiii.    5 

261 

xii.    6 

389 

vii.    7 

894 

Ixxxv.    2 

401 

xiv.    2 

.377 

Ixxxvii.    1 

291 

Canticles. 

XV.  30 

.^77 

Ixxxviii.    8 

431 

iv.    5 

121 

xvi. 

513 

Ixxxix.  50, 

51 

292 

vi.    8 

6(16 

xix. 

513 

xc.    4 

141 

9 

(563 

26,  27 

1(58 

xuv.    6 

234 

viii.    6 

393 

xxviii.  12 

3b9 

10 

235 

xxix.  18 

394 

xcvi.  10 

1(55 

Isaiah. 

25 

1()8 

xcvii.    7 

22(5.  227 

i.    6 

10 

10-17 

11-17 

18 

21 

22 
ii.    2 

399 
525 
274 

282 
278 

253,  488 
395 
556 

xxxi.  10 

ir,6 

cii.    3 

394 

XXXV.  14 

xxxviii.  28 
33 

168 

378 
378 

15 

25 
civ.    1 

377 
227 
229 

xlii.  14           1(56 

Psalms. 
ii.               262 

4 
35 
ex. 
1 

226 
(556 
227,254.262 

!l27,  283 

7 
vii.  13 

22(5,237,243 
510 

4 

2:37.240.243, 

252 
297 

5 
12 

(510 

3'57 

viii.    6 

220 

cxiv.    7 

12-19 

513 

X.    6 

27 
xi.    7 

394 
3(52 
626 

oxvi.  17 
cxviii.  22 
cxix. 

301 
104 
325,  355 

iii.    4 
9 

10 

1.52 
525 
351 

xii.    2 
XV.    1-5 
xvi.  10 

377 
288 
262 

20 

cxx.    .3, 

5 

nxxii.    3 

4 

393 

389 

99 

17 

v.    1-30 

23 

](56 
372 
410 

xvii.  15 

168 

556 

vi.    1-8 

700 

xix. 

8-11 

642 
.379 

cxxxvi.    6 

7 

141 

378 

vii.    6 
9 

540 
180 

xxi.    3 

17 

377 
229 

380 

cxxxviii,  19 

cxxxix.  11 

16 

234 
378 
283 

viii. 
14 

18 

231 
104 
232 

xxii. 

231,232 

(^xl.  13 

389 

21 

248 

xxiv.    2 
xxix.    1 

141 
226 

cxivi.    2 

375 

ix.    5 

(5 

700 
1(58,253 

xxxii.    1,2 

401 

Proverbs. 

8 

138 

6 

290 

iii.    5, 

6 

3(57 

X.    3 

105 

xxxiii.  12-16 

109 

11 

3(57 

xii.    3 

64(5 

xxxiv.    8 

104 

n. 

12 

295 

xiii. 

(580 

10 

296 

21 

230 

(5 

395 

xxxviii.    7 

235 

25 

108 

9, 10, 17  520 

xxxix.  12 

292 

34 

113,367,391 

10 

513 

13 

99 

iv.  26 

29(5 

xiii.  ) 
xxiii.  V 
xxiv.  ) 

14 

96 

vii.  Iti- 

23 

378 

556 

xl.    6,7 

281 

viii.  22 

177 

7 

3S0 

ix.    5 

254 

xiv.    4-12 

680 

12 

282 

31 

112 

12 

.519 

xlii.    3 

168 

X.  12 

112,367,401 

18 

525 

4 

141 

xii.  10 

6;i2 

31 

395 

740 


PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE 


Isaiah  (continued). 

Jeremiah  (continued). 

EzEKiEL  (co7iiimied). 

XV.    3 

395 

iii.    3 

395 

xxxvi.  27 

393,394 

xvii.    5 

554 

8 

520 

xxxvii. 

395 

xxiv.  22 

290 

14 

264 

10 

525 

XXV.    7-9 

275 

iv.    3 

260 

xxxviii.,  xxxix. 

556 

xxvi.  11 

28r. 

23 

378,  520 

xl. 

524 

21 

513 

23-26 

513 

xliii.    2 

514 

xxvii.  13 

128 

V.  14 

625 

xliv.    2 

317 

xxix.  13-21 

301 

24 

395 

17 

330 

XXX.    4 
xxxi.    9 

295 
558 

vi.  20 
4 

283 

404 

Daniel. 

xxxii.    1 

253 

16 

654 

iii. 

293 

IG 

142 

21-23 

283 

25 

226 

xxxiii. 

395 

viii.  2,  7-12 

271 

31 

lUl 

15 

288 

xi.  14 

654 

iv.    1 

101 

xxxiv.    3,  4 

513 

xiv.    9 

385 

14 

91 

4 

141 

11 

654 

Ti.  23 

293 

11 

525 

XV.  16 

524 

25 

101 

xxxvii.    3 

475 

xvi.,  XXV. 

656 

vii.    8,30 

534 

xxxviii.  11 

168 

xvii.  26 

301 

9 

514 

Xl.      ») 

381 

xviii.    7-10 

S95 

10 

297,  509 

6,7 

377 

xxii.  13 

395 

13 

514 

xli.    8 

3^7 

xxiii.    5 

260 

vii.  24 

532 

19 

514 

14 

525 

25 

524 

xliii.  20 

104 

26 

139 

viii.  10 

366,  529 

xliv.    4 

260 

XXV.  29 

112 

13 

.524 

xlvi. 

630 

xxvi.  2;^ 

294 

17 

224 

xlvii.    5,  7 

663 

xxxi.  22 

264 

26 

524 

xlviii.    8 

283 

31-34 

264,271.272 

ix.  24,  25 

275 

9 

104 

33,  34 

282 

27 

488,  524 

22 

376 

xx.xii.    4 

669 

X.    5 

514 

xlix.    2 

514 

23 

294 

6,11,12  514 

1.    3 

513 

XXXV, 

330 

13 

1.51.  515 

5 

283 

xxxviii.  33,  34 

2S3 

13,20,21  231 

Hi.    5 

107 

xl. 

657 

20,21 

504 

liii.    7 

395 

li.    1 

540 

xi.  31 

4SS 

9 

107 

27 

523 

36 

651 

11 

410 

41 

540 

xii.    1 

1.51.504,523 

11.  12 

107 

4-9 

524 

12 

107,  275 

Lamentations. 

7,11 

524 

liv.    5 

390 

ii.    7,8 

525 

11 

488 

11 

12 

Ivi.    1 

377 
556 

288 

iv.    7 

323,  330 

13 

224 

EZEKIEL. 

Hose 

a. 

7/ 
Ivii.    Sf 

131 

ii.    9 

iii.    3 

524 
524 

ii.  16 
23 

264 
104 

hi.  lU 

151 

viii.  11 

2()9 

iv.  17 

395 

Ivii.  19 
2(1 

301 
377,  499 

ix.    4,  6 

xiv.    3 

514 
617 

vi.    6 
viii.    1 

274,283,380 
620 

21 

376 

21 

512 

X.    7 

51 

Uk.  lii 

2(i2 

xvi.  32 

390 

8 

.513 

Ix.    1 

260 

48,  49 

525 

xii.    6 

380 

H 

295 

xvii.    6 

2*;o 

xiii.  14 

475 

21 

405 

10 

377 

15 

377 

Ixi.    1 

(>24 

xviii.  23 

141 

xiv.    4 

401 

Ixii.    4 

264 

xix.    1-9 

531 

Ixiii,    1-6 

554 

12 

377 

Joel. 

3 

554 

xxi.  26 

211 

ii.    3 

517 

4 

513 

xxii.  31 

554 

10,31 

513 

<l 

297 

xxiii.  25 

393 

23 

395 

11 

303 

xxvi.,  xxvii. 

556 

28 

624 

17 

234 

xxxii.    7,8 

513,  520 

iii.    4.1") 

513 

Ixiv.  10 

514 

xxxiii.  11 

1  11 

iv.  2,11-14  554 

10,11 

561 

21 

;;oi 

Ixv.  25 

142 

xxxiv.    1-10 

395 

Amos. 

Ixvi.    7,8 

529 

2 

151 

ii.    6 

396 

11 

107 

7 

326 

Jebemiah. 

XXXV i.    5 

281) 

11,12 

348 

ii.  12 

390 

25 

286 

iv.    1 

152 

17 

.•iS2 

25,  27 

264 

V,    4 

288 

QUOTED    OR   REFERRED   TO. 


741 


Amos  (cont 

iiiued). 

APOCRY 

PIIA. 

ECCLEBIASTICUH 

{continued 

V.  12 
21,24 

326, 
283 

398 

II.  Espras. 

iv.    4 

V.  11 

393 

367,  378 

vi.    5-7 

556 

V.    3 

.-JIS 

14 

;w9 

vii.    6,9 

525 

xi.    1 

531 

Vii.  10 

376 

ix.    1 

168 

1,36 

5o2 

xii.  11 

367,  395 

12 

326, 

385 

30 

549 

12 

378 

32 

549 

xiv.  19 

395 

Jonah. 

;-5 

549 

23 

.367,  379 

iii,  10 
iv.    8 

395 

42-46 
45 

556 
682 

XV.    9 
11 

389 

3(i7 

377 

xii.  42 

124 

11-17 

382 

MiCAH. 

xiii.  39-47 

375 

XX.    7 

367 

i     4 

141 

XV.    8 

513 

15 

367,  376 

iv.'    9 

475 

TOBtT. 

28 

2:32 

13 
v.    2 

vi.    6-8 
0,9 

8 
vii.    8 

554 
475 

28;j 

380 
288 
232 

i.  16. 17     384 

17           .525 

viii.    3           522 

xii.  15          2:31,  515 

xiu.    6          224 

Judith. 

xxii.  24 

xxviii.  10,  19 

15,  26 

xxix.  15 

xxxiv.    2 

19 

22 

389 
367 
.388 
261 
3{)5 
232 
395 

Nahum. 

i.    0          513 

iii.    5           166 

iv.    4 
V.  18 
ix.  20 

699 
99 
oS4 

XXXV.    2 
14 
22 

xii.  22 

380 
378 
141 
367,  376 

Habakkuk. 
ii.    3          141 

Wisdom  of  Solomon. 
ii.    1-24     367 

xliv.  14. 15 
xiv.    6-22 
11 
xlviii.    1 
1.    5-16 

464 

704 
262 
525 
703 

3,4 

4 
iii.  12 

160 

207, 
554 

387 

6-20 
8 
•     12 

398 

367,  377 
377 

Zephaniah. 

17 
24 

300 
2:i2 

Baruch. 

iii.    S 

554 

iii.    2 

134 

iv.  35 

5oU 

Haggai. 
ii.    6,7      m 
7-9       266 

Zechariah. 
iii.    1.  2       140 

7 

iv.  11 

V.    8 

9-14 

16 

vi.    1-4 

12 

105 
2:^2 
£67 
S67 
377 
1^6 
101 

I.  Maccabees. 
i.  21           265 
ii.  28,  29     29 1 

38           294 
iii.  45,  51     524 

49           348 

1-3 

151 

12.23 

393 

iv.  49           ""^ 

60 
ix.  26 
xii.  12 

523 
294 
294 

2 

152. 

686 

vii.  17-19 

378 

3,4 
iv. 

385 
5-34 

17-20 
2.5,26 

367 
184,  207 

2 

514 

26 

225.  378 

II.  JIaccabees. 

3,11 

625 

ix.  15 

169,  185 

i.  27 

99 

4,5 

515 

X.    5 

367,  381 

ii.    7 

264 

10 

515 

7 

151 

iii.  39 

138 

14 

240 

xi.    6.7 

518 

iv.  48 

151 

vi.  11-13 

285 

1.%  16 

554 

v.  26 

294 

12 

240 

17 

169 

27 

294 

13 

251, 

254 

xii.  10 

296,  384 

vi.  11 

294 

ix.    9 

253 

16 

3f)7 

•l8-30 

294 

11 

3(!3 

xiii.    1 

185,  291 

vii. 

294 

xi.    1 

278 

xvi.    1,9 

554 

7-10 

2i)4 

xii.ll 

555 

xvii.    2 

554 

9-36 

294 

xiii.    1 

271 

2, 16, 17  684 

28 

29(1 

9 

515 

17 

139 

ix.  19 

375 

xiv.  11 

557 

xviii.  15, 16 

2:6 

X.    6 

2<)4 

Malachi. 

22 

207 

xiii.  14 

221 

ii.  17 

141 

ECCLE3IA8TICU8. 

III.  Maccabees. 

iii.    1 
2 

297 
513 

i.    1-11 

28 

390 
367,  377 

Extra  Apocryphftl  Boole— 
ii.    5           150 

5 

395 

ii.  13 

399 

6 

38:3 

18 

287 

St.  Matthew. 

16: 

300 

iii.    3 

232 

i.    5 

293,  404 

iv.    2 

253, 

260 

30 

232 

19 

305 

742 


PASSAGES   OF  SCRIPTURE 


St.  Matthew 

(continued). 

St.  Matthew  (continued) 

ii.  11-15 

529 

xvii.  21 

326 

12,22 

263 

24-27 

82 

23 

393 

xviii.    6 

619 

Ui.    8-12 

309 

6,8,9 

506 

9 

404,412 

17,18 

679 

iv.    Ill 

394 

22 

82 

21 

307 

xix.  12 

423 

•      V.    3 

367,381,385 

21 

376 

4 

367 

26 

247 

9 

3!>0 

28 

82,375 

10-12 

300 

XX.    2 

510 

11 

112 

12 

377 

12 

102 

23 

431 

22 

367,  387 

24 

432 

23 

364 

25-27 

6T8 

24 

367 

28 

271 

25 

8:3.113 

xxi.  13 

891 

33-37 
35.  36 

367 
399 

21 
22 

141,377,38 
377 

44 

326 

xxii.  23 

208 

48 

367,376 

44 

254 

vi.  14 

367 

xxiii. 

395 

15 

367 

6 

385 

19 

£67 

8,10 

388 

22 

622 

12 

381 

24 

367,377 

16-22,  25 

324 

25 

291 

25-37 

294 

30 

381 

35 

291,  485 

vii.    1 

386,399 

36 

235 

1-5 

367 

xxiv. 

286 

7-12 

367 

2 

300 

16,17 

389 

3 

274 

21-23 

367 

4,7 

510 

viii.  29 

387 

5,11 

623 

ix.  34 

224 

6,8 

511 

37 

668 

7 

510,511 

X.    3 

307,311 

8 

475 

23 

561 

13 

376 

xi.  19 

380 

14 

554 

36 

642 

15 

488 

xiL  28 

271 

16 

529 

31 

683 

28 

499 

31,32 

242 

29 

141.519 

37 

388,410 

29-34 

514 

39 

390 

31 

515 

43-45 

242,522 

34 

2;^5,561 

45 

141 

37 

82 

40 

317 

51 

294 

S:^ 

333 

XXV.    5 

139 

50 

145 

14 

638 

xiii.  17 

294 

21 

102 

23 

384 

35 

299 

26 
30,40.49 

381 
21^ 

35-46 
xxvi.  64 

386 
352 

55 

307,315 

69 

329 

57 

332 

xxvii.  32 

300 

xiv.  31 

232 

46 

232 

XV.     1 

304 

51 

285, 526 

1-9 

301 

5<i 

307 

16 

425 

xxvni.    2 

526 

22 

520 

19 

399 

xvi.    4 

390 

20 

274 

(i-12 

425 

18 

82,104 

St.  Mabk. 

23 

82,104 

i.  15 

241 

28 

2«6,561 

19 

307 

xvll.    8 

526 

20 

419 

4 

134 

iii.  14 

234 

9-13 

526 

17 

421 

St.  Mark  (continued). 


iii.  18 

307 

31 

317 

iv.  34 

139 

vi.    3 

307,321, 

4 

331 

13 

399 

vii.    1-15 

271 

5-13 

324 

20-23 

379 

ix.    2 

107 

20,26 

387 

83 

425 

38 

425 

4:3-47 

507 

x.  27 

247 

32 

429,668 

42 

4:^2 

xi.  21 

317 

xiii.    7 

367,510 

7,8 

512 

8 

475 

9 

367 

14 

4«8 

29 

367 

32 

367 

xiv.  70 

329 

XV.    7 

391 

40 

307 

xvi.  18 

241,446 

St.  Luke. 

i.    6 

325 

11 

269 

36 

315 

43 

675 

50 

317 

52,  53 

396 

58 

641 

68 

105, 

ii.  26 

263 

29 

150 

44 

315 

iii.  11 

309 

iv.    5,6 

293 

24 

;^32 

25 

399 

35 

85 

V.  10 

307 

39 

104,306 

vi.  15 

421 

16 

144,145 

20 

385,396 

22 

300 

22,  23 

376 

32 

107 

35 

104 

36 

399 

vii.  40 

676 

42 

138 

50 

386 

viii.  19 

317 

24 

377 

31 

520 

48 

386 

ix.  25 

287 

31 

300 

35 

i:]8 

49 

425.426 

54 

309 

QUOTED    OR   REFERRED   TO. 


743 


St.  Luke  (contlmied). 


St.  John  [contimied). 


ix.  .^4,  55 
X.  18 

30 

34 

55 
xi.  13 

ao 

21 

2(5 

28 

40 
xii.  25 

35 

54 

55 

58 
xiv.  11 

12 
xvi.  31 
xvii. 

9. 


428 

520,  530 

2!»7,376 

31)'.> 

428 

376 

271 

270 

248 

145,318,378 

379 

1U2 

85 
260 
377 

83 
381 
315 
526 


10     411 


xviii. 


,8 


xxi. 


3 

7, 
12 
14 
27 

3 
44 

17,18 
21 

9 

19 
20 
21 


25 

25,26 

26 

28 
xxii.  20 

24 

24-26 

28 

31 

32 

43 
xxiii.  S4 

36 

46 
xxiv.  12 

18 

21 

25 

27 

31 

39 

41 

51 


513 

325 

215,381 

247 

240,307 

105 

104 

352 

377 

287 

446,473 

529 

524 

516 

555 

297 

271 

274 

425 

678 

376 
&3 
99 

240 

352,  434 

514 

107 
85,  379 

311 

271 

425 

283 

437 

608 

240 

107 


St.  John. 


1 
2 
3 

3-10 

4 

4-9 

5 

7 


609,  611 

5S6 

172 

224 

608, 609, 611 

619 

611 

645,  647 

263,  609 


11 

12 

13 

14 

14-17 

18 

45 

2 

4 

i;^ 

19 


585 

609 

883,  609 

271,565,609 

645 

()09 

64t) 

647 

145,  317 

r.66 

271 


iii.    3,7,31378 


5 
16 
19 
36 

6 

10 
11, 


35-38 
37 
44 
24 

31-37 
32 
33 
35 
36 

39,40,45645 
647 

6,61,64425 
25  669 

27  587 

29  668 

40,47,54587 

45  420 

51-56      SCO 
1-10 
4 
5 
7 

33,  42 

35 

38 
vui.  12 

14 

18 

21-24 

31 

32 

32,  40 

33 


646 

(i21 

611 

587 

432,  565 

646,  647 

587 

585 

440 

641 

332 

587 

615 

676 

645 

378 

645 


vu. 


34 
44 
51 
56 
58 

5 
31 
,    4 

7-9 


319,  333 

334 

313,  334 

145,  379 

393 

375 

616 

611 

645 

645 

652 

616 

379 

645 

404 

140 

232 

566 

292 

383 

378 

651 

668 

350,  398 


11.1.5,17,18632 


16 
22 
25 
36 
xi.  9,  10 
3:^ 


107 
2T4 
645 
234 
617 
425 


St.  John  {continued). 
xi.  41,  42     651 
48-50 
52 


54 


xii.  K) 

25 

30 

31 

xii. -xvii. 

xiii.    1 

1-6  83 
1,3,11,21425 
12-15     618 


4S4 
99 
429 
103 
42.5 
522 
138 
530 
591 
618 


34 


400 
399 
410 
424 
432 
620 
643 


34,35  615,618 
37,  38  "-^^ 
,  6 
10 
15 


XV. 


16 

16,  17 
l(i,  26 
17 
26 

4,  5, 

5 
11 
13 
26 
27 
xvi.  7 
12 
13 
14 
23 
26 
30 
xvii.  2,3 

3 


632 

28.5,566,612- 

271 

613 
j  600,613,614, 
I    653 

668 

613 

645 

676 
7  625 

626 

610 

632,  675 

613,  645 

645 

613 

565 

645 

645 

643 

653 

641 

586,  625 

610,657,658 

384 


9,15,20653 


11 
11,17 
14-26 
15 


17 
23 

:viii.  4 
14 
15 
26 
28 
37 

xix.  11 
25 
26 
27 
28 
34 
35 


150 

645 

642 

379 

383 

644 

425 

484 

4:^3 

315 

379 

6:J5,  (545 

10.5,378,508 

307,  311 

318,424 

422. 445. 5i  5 

425.  676 

435,  647 

435,  645 

424 


744 


PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE 


Bt.  John  (continued).       | 

XX.   5-11      102,  S79 

»;  4:W 

12  5(16 

14  4:^7 

21-23     «.37 

29  102 

30  4o5 
xxl.    4           437 

5  fi:>0 

(5  240 

7-20     424 
8  437 

16  437 

16  112,  437 

17  437,  634 
17,  18     138 

19  79 

21  437 

24  645,  676 

Acts. 
i    8  526 

13  145,  438 

14  318,  335 

16  104 

17  137 

ii.    2  134,  138 

9  lUU,  663 

9-12     360 

15  134 
16,20.40561 
17  102 
17,  18  624 
20  128 
22  103 
27           262 

31  102 

32  84 
32-36  81 
36  2:34 
:iB  399 
40  85 
47  2a3 

ui.    6  103 

10  128 

12  128,1;M,138 

13  107,  304 

,^,  (   84,215,232 
^^        1         295 

16  376,  399 

17  102 

18  84 
19-21  561 
l!>-26  84 
19-31  105 
24  102 

iv.  1  4.38 

1-6    84,386,399 

11  84 
13  419 
13,  19  463 
21  304 

24  1;j4,  150 

V.  17  ;i85,  556 

28-32  105 
«0     84 

81  215,232,295 
32     84 

40-42  105 


Acts  {contimted). 

V.  41     675 

vi.  1     219,  379 

6     241 

9     304 

vii.  2     309 

6     99 

12     385 

16-43  259 

20     293 

22     297 

2;j     230 

29     99 

38     235 

52    397 

viil,      572 

1     441 

11     547 

14     440 

17     592 

20     103 

ix.  2     616 

16     675 

X.  2     84 

20     152,  385 

22     263 

28     107 

34    103 

38  624 

39  84 

40  84 

41  84 

42  84 

43  84 
xi.  19     76 

2(5     97 

30  339 

xii.  2  308,  462 

3  22;; 

14  240 

17  338 

20  633 

25  339 

28  240 

xiii,  15  303 

39  215,  412 

43  43 

44  274 
xiv.  15  399 
XV.  506 

2  149,  340 

5  566 
7  77 
9  103 

10  271,325,379, 

386 

11  62 

13  307,  342 

13-21  404 

14-21  374 

17  102,  326 

19  342 

20  290,  303 

23  375 

24  76,  371 
xvi.  14  43,  667 
xvii.  593 

6  105 

12  385 

13  304 


AcT.s  (continued). 

xvii.  29  1,38 

30  102 

xviii.    2  007 

5  385 

18  214,  348 

24  217 
24-28     217,  218 

25  221 

26  217 
xix.    1  217 

9  2:,4, 676 
26  274 
29  676 
38  385 
41  304 
XX.  4     675 

19  376 
20-27     2.S8 

28  95,  104 

29  152,  300 
xxi.    8           307 

10  l.S'J 

17-25      4U4 

20  146 

21  407 
5i4  1C3 

25  303 
27  .304 
29.  SO  623 
38           391 

xxii.  11  240 

12  349 

XX)  ii.    1  303 

8  208 

12  392 

22  304 

26  375 
xxiv.    5-14  566 

16  91,  303 

xxvi.    5  379,  566 

7  375 

10  397 

11  294 

19  234 
26  303 

xxvii.  14  113 

XXV  iii.  22  566 

28  97 

31  259 

Romans, 

i.    1  374 

4  226 

10  675 

16  97.  378 

17  207,  287 

18  102 

20  185 
24  621 
28  12;i 

ii,  4  12.3,  142 

(MO  414 

8  612 

13  386,410,413 

17  377 
17-20  404 

18  241 
22  43 
24  :385 


QUOTED    OR    REFERRED   TO. 


745 


.OMANS  {continned).        \ 

Romans  (coDthnied). 

I.  Corinthians  {continued). 

ii.  2!> 

108 

xii.  10 

299 

X.    8 

1 40,  (Wl 

iii.    8 

14->,  149 

13 

299,;]01,674 

11  • 

:>{;\ 

20 

410,  021 

19 

190,213,221 

13 

300,  612 

21-24 

07 

xii.-xvi. 

413 

20 

534 

24 

2S9 

xiii     1-4 

85 

21 

151 

25 

209,232,014 

1-7 

39,186,508 

32 

507 

27 

379 

5 

39 

xi.    7 

676 

28 

402,  415 

10 

385 

19 

139,  666 

iv.    2 

402 

11,  12 

561 

23 

189,  416 

3 

412 

12 

619 

25 

272 

3,0,22  411                 1 

xiv. 

300 

30 

1.51 

4 

356 

7 

221 

31.  32 

111 

8 

292 

21 

507 

»u.  1 

(;75 

11 

108 

XV.  14 

138 

1.51,  636 

13 

291 

25 

242 

8 

377 

17-19 

292 

33 

190,221.303 

9 

400 

18 

409 

xvi. 

39,  667 

10 

139,  636 

2'J 

377,  385 

3 

218 

xiii. 

390 

25 

90,  275 

11 

40 

.^  6 

112 

V.    1 

402 

17 

85 

9 

224 

2 

88 

20 

303 

12 

282,  378 

1(5 

S78 

23 

214,  674 

13 

2f6 

20 

142,  034 

xiv.    5 

113 

vi.    1 

8i) 

I.  Corinthians. 

26-34 

388 

1-15 

89,  90 

i.  7 

561 

33 

377 

2 

107 

9 

280,  612 

XV, 

205 

(i 

85 

13-15 

a99 

3 

416 

rr 

89 

14 

674 

7 

307,310,335 

12 

621 

2(5 

361,  396 

21 

561 

12-14 

88 

30 

253 

22 

2.s7,383,621 

vii.  14 

201 

ii.    6 

181 

27 

231 

17 

629 

10 

507 

y2 

394,  531 

22 

108 

14 

389 

35 

386 

23 

85,  104 

14,  15 

402 

52 

515 

viii.    3 

88,  232 

iii.    1 

260 

xvi. 

413 

4 

121 

1,2 

241,  244 

1 

242 

13 

fc9 

1,10 

104 

12 

218 

15 

90.103,383. 

2 

710 

15 

383 

641 

4-6 

218 

•)•> 

561 

18 
19-20 

85 
622 

10 
13 

142 
286,  414 

II.  Corinthians. 

19-22 

383 

16 

234 

i.    1 

220 

21 

140 

19 

399 

5 

293 

24 

204 

23 

385 

ii.    6-8 

(555 

21-25 

289 

iv.    4 

303 

7,  10 

24(5 

34 

85 

9 

287 

9 

390 

ix.    2 

142 

19 

395 

14 

299 

5 

141 

V.     1-11 

147 

iii. 

216 

15 

210 

5 

111,654,655 

1 

348 

16 

2:34 

9 

676 

3 

261 

19 

382,  386 

10 

299,  454 

iv.    2 

32, 103,190 

25 

104 

vi.    1 

220 

4 

207,245,282 

25-£2 

85 

9 

299 

16 

108 

29 

395 

9-18 

150 

V.     1 

138.185,621 

32 

241 

12-20 

142 

7 

289 

32,  33 

104 

17 

409 

10 

414 

33 

104 

5 

108,  319 

14 

88,  356 

X.   7 

303 

12,  13 

()71 

21 

275 

9 

409 

19 

415 

2 

210 

xi.  22 

108 

22 

299 

16,  17 

210 

33 

507 

viii.  13 

572 

vii.    1 

626 

3l> 

190 

ix.    1 

189 

10 

296 

xii.    1 

103.104,283 

2 

141 

!                   12 

246 

1-21 

2,;i.  2S7 

5 

77.130,147, 

viii.    4 

220 

2 

8.5,  102 

4«i2 

ix. 

413 

5 

409 

13 

300 

4 

288 

6 

85 

18 

676 

8 

413 

8 

37H 

X.    4 

1.-0.156,685 

13 

3(1 

9 

299 

7,  8 

506 

xi.    2 

.3iM,  423 

746 


PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE 


11.  Corinthians  (continued) 

Ephesians  {continued). 

Philippians  {continued). 

xi.  18.  14 

.'i(l4 

1.20 

85 

iv.  7 

101 

17 

288 

ii.    2 

150 

8 

126 

20 

149,  674 

8 

112 

9 

808 

22 

220 

8 

85 

22 

39 

24 

220 

8,9 

4.12,  409 

29 

5U7 

10 

101,  2;i2 

Colossians. 

xii.  12 

213 

11,12 

684 

i. 

89 

13 

608 

18 

221 

4 

205.  286 

21 

147 

18 

S8,  286 

5 

224 

20   ■ 

104 

9 

389 

Galatiaxs. 

i.    1           230,  416 

iii.    2 
2,3 

189 
218 

10 
15 

188,413,675 
207 

1-12 

J87,  215 

4-8 

I'.M 

17 

225 

5 

81/3 

8 

675 

20 

610,  700 

<» 

149 

12 

2:^6,285,650 

24 

298 

10 

683 

16 

108 

ii. 

150 

i.  11— ii.  21 

416 

iv.  14 

101,300,377 

3 

877 

i.  11-15 

189 

22 

294 

4 

378 

18 

803 

25 

610 

9 

271 

18,19 

887 

S2 

399 

10-15 

110 

1'.) 

807,810,313, 

V. 

413 

14,  15 

209 

442 

1,2 

616 

16 

878 

ii.    2 

416 

8 

147 

16-23 

300 

4 

150 

;^5 

299 

18 

151,379,613 

6 

18!),  352 

5 

378 

18-23 

819 

7,9 

77 

7 

454 

iii. 

413 

y 

99.807,338, 

8 

102 

5 

299 

404,  416 

8,9. 

-  610 

9 

294 

10 

242 

11-14 

12 

113,  207 

12 

150,  288 

14 

154,  393 

28 

107.  413 

14 

300 

21 

85 

8 

803 

16 

2S9 

22 

85.  275 

10 

315 

19,  20 

88 

20 

28() 

11 

676 

20 

205,  356 

vi. 

418 

11-15 

216 

iii.    1 

259 

5 

.^5 

18 

287 

7 

108 

10 

225 

11 

2S7 

12 

150.232,471 

I.  THEssALo^^IA^^s. 

18 

107,  209 

14 

102 

i.    3 

190,242.286 

16 

210 

23 

150 

4 

100      • 

19 

208,  280 

10 

294 

19,20 

264' 

Philippians. 

14-16 

598 

26 

289,  383 

i.    7 

)a^i 

ii.    1 

286 

iv.    8 

241 

8 

390 

9 

076 

10.24 

38(5 

21 

409 

12 

675 

19 

108 

25 

808 

14 

376 

24 

62 

27 

103 

14-16 

43 

V.     1 

379 

'2^ 
80 

97 

15 

97,  593 

6 

418.  415 

97 

18 

308 

10 

808 

ii.    5-11 

193 

iii.    2 

6T6 

16 

856 

6 

248 

4 

97 

20 

189,  566 

7 

2^Z 

iv.    3 

2S3 

24 

88 

8 

221 

G 

147  299 

vi.    7 

242 

9 

94,232,675 

299 

12 

149 

10 

509 

13-17 

5(51 

12,13 

800 

11 

i»4 

iv.  18-v.ll  142 

13 

140,  147 

13 

303 

15 

141.  621 

13-26 

142 

15 

876 

16 

1m!  275 

15          415 

Ephesians. 
i.                204 
3             K5,  101 
4-7         85 

7  610 

8  889 
18           8S8 

24 

iii.    2 
5 
7 

7-11 
12 
19 
20 
iv. 

303 

43,  593 
220 
409 
298 
888 
88].  889 

i:6.  561 
418 

V.    1-16 
9 
2:) 
28 
24 
25 
26 
28 

;(il 

104 

189 

803 

2^(i,  612 

803 

400 

376 

14 

104 

2 

6r.7 

II.  Thessalonians. 

15 

205 

8 

297 

i     4 

97 

17 

809 

5 

561 

7-10 

561 

QUOTED   OR   REFERRED   TO. 


747 


II.  Thessalonians  {cont.). 

i.    8  43,  "275,612 

ii.    3  47,  633 

3-12  501 

10  140 

17  413 

iii.    2  !)7 


I.  Timothy. 


4 

6 
17 
18 
20 

4 

5 

«.) 
10 

2 

6 

15 

16 

,    1 

1 

3 

7 
16 

.  10 
13 
15 
17 
22 

.  3 
14 
18 


138 

2U6 

2M 

139 

504, 654, 675 

Ml 

261,271,013 

108 

413 

2i)'.t.  674 

3!>0 

3  6 

2!4 

110 
!)2 
389,  561 

2i)!».  300,319, 
710 

138 

2-18 

413 

OTti 

39() 
379 
236 
379 
301,  413 


11. 


II.  Timothy. 

i.    7  103 

18  675 
-   ^5  383,668 

16  294 

17  504,  675 

19  627 
24  395 

iii.    1  561,  621 

8  156 
17  413 

iv.    4  296 
2  458 

9  21  219 
14  654 
17  531 
19  214,  21S 

Titus. 
i.    8  2'.19,  674 

ii.    7-14     413 

12  621 

13  13S 

14  271 
iii.    1  39 

5  101 

8  413 

9  29  I,  391 

10  139 
13  218.222.675 

15  286 


nilLEMON. 

7  6T4 

9  6r.O,  719 

22  303 

Hebrews. 

i  208 

1  192,  202 
1-4       208,224,225 

2  561 

3  191,192,193, 

288.289,309 

4  264 

5  226.  284 
5. 6       191 

5-14     216, 217,233 
8, 9       191 
13  283 

ii.  208 

1  242 
1.4  230 
1-5       233 

2  202 

3  187,189.202, 
213,220,296 

3. 4       241 

5  204 
5-8  192 
5-18     230-232 

6  210,  697 
f»-16     233 

7  191 

8  192 

9  209 
9, 10      210 

10  190.209,215, 
241.2 -.2, 319 

11  201),  208,283 
13  22(; 

16  102.  191,195 

17  Ii  (4.209, 234, 
23().237,  240 

17,  18     233 

18  284 

iii.  1     237,284 
1-6   233,  234 
>2     211,691,697 
3     2(i4.  291 
3, 4   219 

6  217 

7  202,210,2.34 
7-15     191.697 
749      233,  '^i^ 

9  202 

10  2;i'> 

12  234, 242,287 

14  288,  289 

15  235 

16  191 

17  150 
iv.    1  202 

1-10  196 

1-13  233 

a,  4  191 

4  235 

5  226 

7  293 

8  235 

9  194.  263 
11  274 


Hebrews  (continued). 
iv.  11-13      235,236 
12  103.202,207, 

290.  6J-8 
12,  13     198,  208 

14  219,  285 
14-16     233, 2:^6 

15  2U9. 275,694 

16  284,  (JoO 
V.    1-3        2:W,  240 

1-10      284 

2  192,  286,698 
2, 3       270 

3  194,  282 
4-10      237.  241 

5  191 

6  586 

8  192,  209 

9  210 

10  251 

11  21  !t,  378 
11-14     2:0.237.240, 

211 
V.  ll-vi.20  284 

12  85 
14           19i 

vi.    1  200.206.219, 

271,  618 
1-3       237 
1-8       241.  242 
2  208,  217.303 

4  189.  I!t6,287 
4,  5      ^04,  205 
4-6        653 

4-8  199.211.216, 
2:57.  286. 
296.  691 

5  204, 231.690 

6  251 
8  242 
9-10  2;37 
9-12  287 
9-20     ^11-243 

10  195, 221,299 

11  212 
11-18  237 
11,18,19  2b6 

13  286,  698 

14  191 

15  294 

17  232,  2S3 

19  205 
19,  20     237 

20  209,  210,285 
viL    1-3       238.  252 

1-17  196 
l-':8  284 
2,  10  209 
3  234 

3.10.25191 
4-10      238,  259 
5.  6.  9  262 
5.11.27194 
6-t)        265 

11  265,282 
11. 12     238 
11-19      261 
11-25      2S:j 

12  203,  260 
13,  14     2o8 


748 


PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE 


Hebbews  (continved). 

vii.  14,  21  li>l 

15  210 

15-19  238 

17  (;i>S 

18  2(51 

18, 19  yoi 

11»,  22  192.  203 

2<>,  21  261 

20-22  2;« 

22  2<)4 

22-25  2»)2 

23,  24  192 

2:^-25  2:^8 

25  23(5,  ar.i 

26  209,  275,283 
26-28  262.  26:^ 

27  187.  270,282 

28;^ 

39  192 

viii.    1  191.193.219, 
261,  283 

1-6  2:.'8 

1-7  263,  264 
viii.    l-ix.28  284 

2  204 

5  204,  274,282 
5-8  191 

6  203,  265 
7, 8  192 
7-13  2:3s 
^12  282 
^13  2(.4 

9  232 

10  194 

10-12  283 

10,  12  325 

ix.    1  204,  265 

1-5  265,  266 

1-10  196 

1-14  238 

3  285,  298 
3,  4  187 

4  262 

5  309,  614 
6-10  2TU.  271 

7  293 

7,  19  194 

8  192,  265 

8,  12  26  J.  286 

9  204 

10  241.  300 

11  203,  282 
11,12  VH 
11-14  270,  271 

12  2.S5 
12-28  302      - 

13  85.101, 297 
13,  14  208 

14  203.241,263. 

2T5.    286, 
610 

15  l'.)2.209.210, 

271,    272, 
292.  294 

15-17  261.  271 

15-18  'Mi 

15-22  20'.>,  239 

16,17  272,  6'«7 

18-28  lUl,  274,275 


(cotiU'nued). 
IX.  20  272 

22  209 

23  203,  204 
23-28     239 

24  204,  263,275 

25  262 
25-28     302 

26  224,  275 

28  107,  192,275 

X.    1-3       262 

1-10  196,  239.282 
1-18  282, 28:3,285 
1. 22     236 

2  219 
2, 22     208 

3  669 
5-7,  30  191 
9  21)3 

10-14      208 
10,14,29206 

11  187 
11,  12     263 
11-14     '2S2,  283 
11-18     239 

12  193 

14  210 

15  210 
15-18     284 

16  283 

18  2m 

19  88.219,263 
19-25     285,  2S6 
19-31      285,  287 

20  210,  221 

21  204 

22  2()3,  297 
22, 29     20(5 

23  47 

55  299,  378 

25, 37     561 

26  189,216.245. 

247 
26-29  199 
26, 29  242 
26-31  211.242.285, 

296 

27  4:?,  275 
27,28,20299 

28  293 

29  192,197.203, 

248 
29,34,  Kgg 
38,39  P"'^ 

30  190,194,213, 

221 
32  221 

32.  33  299 
32,  39     287,  288 

34  206.214,381, 

694 

35  217 
35-39     206 

37  141 
37,  38     191 

38  207 
.•:9  287 

xi.    1  <H),  206 

1-3  204 
1,  2,  4  206 


Hebeews  {co7iti7itied). 

xi.    3  224,  290 

4  297 

4,  5  206 

6  236 

7  206 

8  291 

9  192.  282 

10  204,  206,291 

11  286 

13  96,  99,  293 

14  204 

16  385 

17  293,  387 

21  191 
25  194 
31  387 
32.33  376 

33  206,  294,531 
3;3-40  293-294 

34  620 

35  208,271,  £03 
37,38  393 

09  293 
40  2('6 

xii.    1  r.  2. 200,283, 
409 

1-7  £94,  295 
xii.  l-xiii.l9  2^5 

2  193.  209,215 

6-11  210 

9  I'Jl 

18  189,  296 

14  296,  378 
14-17  296 

15  296,  690 
15-17  242 
15-28  300 

16  296 

16,  17  199,  211 

17  189,  378 

18  204,  297 
18-21  202 
18-22  236 

18. 27  204 
ls-29  297,  298 

19  202 

22  204,  291 

22. 28  20(5 

24  101.206.271, 

2M),  191 

25  29() 

26  286 

27  204,  216 

28  204,  205 

29  286 
xiii.    1,2  192 

1-6  221, 287 

2  192,  674 

3  287 

4  190 

5  191.  699 

7  221,  676 

8  297 
8-16  3(10,  301 

9  221 

10  107 

11  2ii3 

12  194.206,292 

13  293 


QUOTED    OR   REFERRED   TO. 


749 


Hebhews  (co7>.tinne(l). 


xiii.  14 

192,291,303 

15 

104 

18-23 

695 

18-24 

191 

20 

190,20.5,221 

20-25 

303 

23 

214,  219 

24 

222 

2() 

296 

St.  James. 

i.    1 

363,374,376 

1-1 

369 

2 

376 

2-4 

85,  376, 380 

2-15 

370 

2-18 

S69 

cJ 

370,376,412 

3,  25 

370 

4 

370.  376 

4,22 

371) 

5 

10,367,.370, 

376,    377, 

380,  409 

5-8 

327.  3(i9 

G 

152,  .360, 367, 

37(),  413 

(J-8 

377,  380 

8-12 

367.  378 

9 

380 

9-11 

369.  377 

10 

85,367,381 

11 

367 

12 

367,  .370.  .377 

12-15 

0(59,  382 

18 

367 

13-15 

377,  378 

14 

105,123,140 

ir>-is 

369,378.384 

17 

300, 3(i6, 376 

18 

91,101,363, 

414 

19 

366,  367 

19-21 

3(i9 

l!>-25 

378,  379 

19-27 

36!) 

20 

367 

21 

367.  370 

22 

354.  35(i 

22,27 

309 

2.3 

367 

25 

62,10-2,367, 

376,  410 

26,27 

325,369,  379 

ii.    1 

363,372,413 

1-4 

370 

1-7 

370 

1-13 

36S,"69..3S6 

2 

,365,  370 

5 

342,  413 

5,1.3 

366 

fi,7 

361 

7 

40,358,36;i 

8 

379 

10 

138 

10-26 

370 

12 

62,410,414 

14 

402,  410 

14-18     385. 


St.  J.\mes  (cmtinned). 
ii.  14-26     368,369,370 
15.16,  I 
19,20   )  '^"•' 
17  402 

17,  2(f     414 
Va  m\  369 

19-26     3.S7 
21  107.  .367, 402 

21-26     358 
22-26     413 

23  411,  412 

24  402,409, 415 
24.  25  6S9 

iii.  1-12  370,  389 
1-18  369,  370 

2  1,38,  376 
2,  3   379 

3  101 

4  360 

5  367 

6  366 
13     .3.56 
13-17   327, 370 
13-18  .370 

15  369 
15-17  377 

16  377 

17  328,  369 
1           390    , 
1-6       390,  391 
1-10     370 
1-12     ,369 

2,  3,  8  326,  370 
■4  356 

4,  5  370 
«  85,  3f;7 

7  85 

8  103,  377 
10  85 

iv.  11,  12     368,  .370 

13  360,366,369, 

377 
13,  14    ,370 
13-17     370,  394 
13-v.  11  369 

14  3<;7 

16  394 

17  370 
20     367 

V.  1     356 

1-6  309. 361, .367, 
369,  370, 
395 

3  224 
;i-6  368 
3,8,9  561 

4  326,  370 

5  ::56 

6  3(,3 

7  -.'AV.],  370 
7,  8  3r,S,  395 
7-11   369 

8  370 

10  370 

11  370 

12  36.5.366.369, 

379 
13-15     370 
13-18     326,  309,. 370 


St.  .Tames  (rondimed). 

V.  14  330,  3()3.365 

15  377.  409 

16  370,  612 
l()-20  370 

17  .524 

19,  20  3(;9.  401 
20  H5,  112 

I.  Peter. 
i.  1-ii.  10  !k9 

1  85.  96,  98, 

;375,  668, 
682 
1,  2       101 

2  81.  85,  98, 

20(i,  2b6 

3  84,   85,  87, 

90,      102, 
121,  .38;^ 

3-5       101 

3-12       98 

4  86, 11 3,  ,377 

5  82,  84,  90, 

101 
<5  8.5,  86,  87 

(5-0         43,  85,   87, 

90,       97. 

101,    102, 

123,   o7() 
«  83,  84,  87, 

90. 102 
n  90,  120 

10  84 
10,  11     105 

10-12      101,102,1.39 

11  102,  139 

12  8(,  45,  S6, 
87.  91,  319 

13  85,  86,87, 

90,  1S8 
13-16       87 
13-17       98 
13-21      103 

14  8.5,  96 

15  96,  o56 

15,18  v:o 

16  96 

17  !-4.  90 

18  8>-,  96,  271 
18-20   84 

IS  21   (X^ 

10     87,88,120, 

124,  262, 

271 

20  103 

21  .S4,  00 

22  87.91,138, 

299 
22-25   98,  103 

23  91,  383 
2.3-25   96 

24  8.-,,3T7..381 

25  88 

ii.  1      87,  103 
1-10   98,  104 

2  83.  85,  87. 

636 

3  103 
4-8    82 


750 


PASSAGES   OF  SCRIPTURE 


I.  Teter  (coniitme'l). 

I.  Peter  {continued). 

II.  Peter  {continued). 

ii.  5 

95,  301 

ill,  21 

87,  91, 121, 

i.  11 

121 

6 

m 

274,  286 

12 

121, 126,138 

C-10 

85 

22 

87 

12-21 

138-139 

7 

84, 104,561 

iv.    1 

85,  89,  121 

13 

126 

8 

82 

1-4 

86,  90 

14 

121 

9 

84.  i;5,  95, 

1-6 

98 

14 

390 

96,     126. 

2 

621,  622 

15 

126,  300 

1.38,  297, 

3 

96,  111,  121 

16 

120,  125 

624 

4 

84,  96,  111 

17 

126 

10 

M.m 

5 

84 

17,21 

134 

11 

84.  87,  98, 

5,7 

101 

19 

124.126,139, 

99,  621 

6 

8%  86,  92, 

260 

11,12 

105 

94,  112 

20 

120 

ii.  11-v.  14 

<)8 

7 

80 

ii. 

150 

la 

87.  97,  98 

7-10 

98 

1 

506 

18 

39,  85 

7-19 

112 

1-3 

124.  129 

1:3-1 6 

82' 

8 

82,  85,  401 

1-13 

134 

13,  1-4-17  508 

8,9 

299 

1-22 

139,  141 

13-17 

98,  107 

8,  18 

123 

3 

121,  124 

13-2) 

86 

10 

85 

4 

109 

11.  13-iii. 

7  98 

11 

87 

4,5 

156,  684 

14 

JK) 

11-16 

5)8 

5,8 

120 

15 

85.  90.  97 

12 

44,97 

6 

124 

16 

95. 140, 147 

12-17 

112 

7 

120,  121 

17 

123 

12-19 

39 

10 

120.121,126, 

18 

85 

13 

87,  89,  102 

129 

18-20 

98 

14 

40,  87,  97 

10,  12, 

18-25 

107 

15 

84.  87,  97, 

13,  15, 

■124 

19 

85.  96 

112.388 

17 

20 

83,90 

16 

97 

12 

121.129.1.32, 

21 

89,91 

17 

44, 102 

133.1.36,151 

21-25 

98 

17-19 

98 

13 

120,121 

22 

a5.  124 

IS 

96 

14 

102.121 

22-25 

87,  399 

19 

90,97 

14,15 

129 

2.3 

83 

V.     1 

84,85,  86, 

14.  18 

378 

21 

83,  84,  88, 

101,    134, 

16 

134 

102 

660,  709 

17 

121 

25 

S3,  97.  134 

1-4 

98 

18 

129 

ill.    1 

85.  86. 132, 

1-11 

113 

20 

116, 248 

133 

2 

S3 

22 

138 

1.  2 

152 

4 

82.86,  91, 

lii.    1 

121 

1-n 

98 

102,  120 

1-13 

127 

1-7 

108 

5 

83.  85,  96, 

1-18 

141,  142 

2 

120 

391 

2 

124 

« 

90,  95,  96 

5-7 

98 

3 

124,126,129 

7 

124,138,391 

6 

86 

2,  16,  17 

138 

8 

124,  399 

8 

83 

5 

124 

8-12 

98 

9 

85,  90,  96 

5-7 

141 

8-17 

109 

9-10 

98 

7 

121 

8-22 

110 

10 

8() 

8-10 

141 

8-iv.  19  98 

10,  11 

98 

9 

124 

9 

85.  97 

11 

80 

10 

121,  128 

9-12 

«; 

12 

83.  88,  %, 

10-12 

43 

10 

(k;,  97 

98,      113, 

11 

120 

11 

90.  290 

138,  303 

12 

561 

13 

87,90.109, 

13 

501,«)63,680, 

14 

120 

1 12,  676 

(i82 

15 

123,149.308 

13-17 

39 

13,  14 

98 

1.5,  16 

127,  689 

13-18 

98 

14 

401 

10 

137 

14 

r»7 

17 

121 

15 

87.  90,  109, 

II.  Peter. 

13S 

i.     1 

121. 134, 150 

I.  John. 

10 

90.  '.t7 

1-11 

138 

i.    1 

620 

17 

8(i.  90.  97 

2 

122,  150 

1,  2 

()09 

18 

80,  Ny 

3 

121 

1.4 

608 

19 

92 

3,5 

126 

2 

646 

19-22 

98 

4 

121,  126 

3 

615 

20 

82.  92.  109 

5 

121,  124 

4 

609 

21 

8;j,  84,  85, 

9 

121,  124 

5 

378,  615 

QUOTED    OR    REFERRED   TO. 


751 


.  John  (confinued). 

I.  John  {continued). 

11.  John  (continued). 

i.  5-7 

(.10,614 

iii.  10-15 

(530 

i.    1 

675 

5-10 

615 

11 

3.56,  6(i8 

1.  2 

620 

(i 

414.56(5,597, 

12 

291 

1^3 

667 

(il.").  616 

14 

590,  653 

4 

6(57 

7 

85,  615 

16 

601 

5,6 

(5(58 

8 

388,  629 

1(5-18 

(530.  632 

5,  6,  7  (5(50 

8-10 

599.612.  (il4, 

17 

(522 

7 

577,(521,657 

615,  629 

18 

(520,  (575 

7-9 

668 

9 

599 

19,  20 

633 

8 

6(51 

ii.    1 

<)00 

19-24 

GOl 

10 

661 

1,  2 

6I:;,  620 

21 

627,  6:5 

10,  11 

376,  068 

1,2s 

620 

21,  22 

650 

12,  13 

(568 

2 

583 

21-24 

634 

13 

6(J2 

3 

615,  617 

24 

627.  635 

3-5 

614,  615 

iii.  24-iv.  6  6:,5 

III.  John. 

3-11 

615 

iv.    1 

601 

7(55-076 

150 

668 

(5(55 

6(50 

660 

669 

3-14 

614 

1-3 

6(58 

2 

4 

577.  615 

1-6 

594,  (535 

5 
5-lS 

578,615,017 

601 

2 

601,(509,638, 
(;f58 

3 

7 

9 

11 

14 

0 

(i-S 

641 
615 

2,  3 
3 

557 
(521.(523,638 

(i-10 

(;(;8 

3,  15 

57(5 

6-11 

617 

4 

620 

St.  Ju''^'!' 

7,8 

(168 

(5,  13 

601 

8 

597,  (i09 

7-12 

635,  640 

1-25 

150-153 

9-11 

598,  615 

8 

577,  676 

1 

153,307,374 

•  10,  11 

454 

9 

67 

2 

1.53 

12 

599 

10 

599,  614 

4 

153 

12-14 

597,  620 

11 

(57 

5 

138,  685 

13, 14 

6U1 

12 

609 

5-7 

153 

15-17 

370 

13-16 

(541 

6 

109.1.56.(584 

15-19 

621 

14 

646 

7 

121.  (585 

l(i 

394 

16 

601,(516 

8 

129,  153 

18 

224,2S4,5G1, 

17 

(527,  (550 

8,  2;^ 

131 

()2() 

17,  18 

635,  641 

10 

129,  132 

IS,  22 

57(;.621.65S 

18 

90,  103 

11 

129,  153 

20 

566,590,601 

19 

(542 

13 

(584 

20-26 

594 

19-21 

(542 

14 

155,  393 

20-27 

624 

V.     1 

(509 

14,15 

15(5.  (584 

20,27 

597,  600 

1-5 

643 

16 

129,  153 

21 

620 

1,10 

57(5 

17,  18 

114 

22 

623,  657 

2 

(501,  642 

18 

101 

2f),  27 

626 

4.5 

612 

19 

153 

27 

601 

5 

(542 

20 

154 

28 

()2T.  034.635, 

6 

(54(5,  6(58 

22,  23 

153 

6<i8 

(5-8 

(314 

23 

650 

ii.  28-iii.  3 

626 

6-9 

644 

25 

154 

29 
iii.    1 

583,  601 
583. 5-.. 9, 609. 

7 
9 

190 
646 

Revelation. 

615 

9-12 

(548,  649 

i.    1-8 

503 

1-10 

627 

10 

(546 

4 

504,  640 

2 

423,  664 

10-12 

(544 

5,6 

286 

2-5 

583 

13 

597,  602 

6 

85.104.301, 

2,  14 

(iUl 

13,  14 

587 

508,  72-3 

3 

85, 108,  m; 

13-17 

(5.-0 

9 

97 

3-8 

627 

14 

627 

i.  9-iii.  22 

503 

4,5 

(i28 

15 

590 

12-17 

514 

4-10 

.599 

15,  IS, 

Uoi 

15 

523 

5,  15 

601 

19,  20 

16 

2.:6 

H 

628,  ()76 

16 

242,248.591, 

ii.    2 

5(55 

6-10 

(i76 

(557, 668 

3 

566 

7,  8 

(528,  629 

18-21 

657 

5,16 

496 

■<-io 

1.50 

20 

56(5,583,609, 

6 

571 

s 

5:;0 

(559 

9 

«>7,  396 

9 

(.29 

21 

594,  620 

10 

97,  377 

9-10 

(':2i"> 

13 

97 

10 

(-.29 

II.  John. 

14 

140,  221 

10,  11 

671 

i. 

668,  (5(59 

15 

571 

752 


PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE. 


Revelation  ( 

continued). 

Revelation  ( 

'ontinued). 

Revelation  ( 

continued). 

ii.  20 

1-JO 

xii. 

-xiv. 

503 

xvii.  11 

47.51 

24 

32,  507 

xii.    1- 

17 

(JOO 

12 

533 

iii.    4 

15-.> 

3 

11.  .504 

12,  13. 

U52 

6 

2W 

() 

515,  5o4 

16,  17 

7 

5Gf". 

7 

15] 

14 

563 

8,  Hi 
11 

5fiG 

9 

539 

15 

631 

4'.»0 

10 

2;;2 

18 

533 

14 

5()3 

14 

473,  5.34 

xviii. 

:-:95 

17 

3m) 

xiii. 

.508 

2 

521,  681 

18 

5(;(> 

1 

47 

4 

454 

l'.» 

21(5 

3 

51,  474 

8 

43 

iv.-vil. 

5i;3 

5 

5.i4 

9.18 

112 

iv.    3 

523 

6 

47 

13 

283 

5 

504 

8 

297,  6.0 

24 

97,  566 

V.  10 

723 

9, 

10 

535 

xix.    1 

44 

]:j 

51)'.),  563 

10 

535 

6 

44 

VI.    4 

487 

11-17 

544 

11 

510,  im 

9 

1)7,  512 

18 

.537 

13 

563 

10 

15U,  221 

xiv.    4 

.383,402,665 

16 

563 

10,11 

6S5 

8 

(181 

20 

544,  545 

11 

97,  524 

14 

423 

XX.    2 

539 

12 

4'.)S 

19, 

20 

4S(> 

4 

97,469,51-<J 

vii.    1 

504,  514 

20 

51 7,  .554,685 

6 

301 

5-8 

375 

XV. 

,  xvi. 

503 

9 

517 

'.) 

44,  5()3 

XV.     1 

504 

10 

545 

13 

512 

xvi.    5 

97 

15 

297 

iii.-xi. 

503 

13 

47,521,545 

xxi.  xxii.  7 

503 

viii.    1-5 

700 

10 

540 

3,4 

294 

2 

504 

19 

<581 

5 

557 

13 

4'.)9,  520 

21 

517 

9 

666 

ix.    4 

514 

xvii 

.-XX. 

503 

10 

291 

11 

540 

xvii 

.-xviii. 

5.';0 

14 

679 

18 

515 

xvii. 

508 

16 

557 

X.    3 

504 

6 

512 

xxii.    7,9 

5;  16 

xi.    2 

534 

8 

47 

8-21 

503 

3 

399,523,526 

8, 10, 11  532 

11 

385 

7 

47 

9 

537 

15 

566 

8 

488 

9, 

10 

504,  531 

18,19 

142 

13 

524 

% 

18 

681 

20 

496 

11 

490 

10, 

11 

474 

PASSAGES   FROM   THE  TALMUD. 


753 


PASSAGES  FROM   THE    TALMUD    QUOTED    OR 
REFERRED  TO. 


Berachoth. 

YOMA  {continued). 

Nedarim. 

fol.     5,  a 

405 

fol 

41,  rt        262,  700 

fol.    31,  b 

4C5 

«),  a 

5(i9 

52,  b        268 

32,  b 

256 

7,  a 

232,  569 

66,  a        278 

38,  « 

267 

b.a 

2^6 

6(>,  b        705 

40,  a 

399 

8,6 

268 

85,  &        276 

64,  6 

319 

13,  b 

405 

86,  a        276 

20,  b 

384 

86,  b        401 

29,  « 

210 

87,  rt        401 

SOTAH. 

32,  a 
63,  6 

242 
299 

Y 

OMA  (Mishnah). 

fol.    47,  6 

405 

Peah  (Mishnah). 

ch.  iii. 

7             701 
4             269 
7             279 

Bata  Kama. 

ch.  ii.     6 

277 

iv. 

fol.  113,  b 

477 

Shabbath. 

V. 

2             268,  270 

fol.    21,  a 

211 

vii. 

2             270 

Bava  Metzia. 

32,  rt 

399 

viii 

9             281 

fol.   59,  b 

341 

55,  & 

2.3 

85,  a 

140,  461 

56,  6 

531 

YOMA  (Tosafoth). 

86,  a 

569 

57,  a 

405 

ch.  i. 

350 

86,  a 

406 

88,  6 

89,  a 

297 

200 

SUCCAH. 

Bava  Bathra. 

fol. 

29,  6        395 

fol.   14,  a 

268 

Pesachim. 

51,  &        163 

25,  rt 

557 

fol.   54,  a 

200 

55,  6        275,276,277 

75,  a 

233 

57,  a 

262,361,362, 
363 

Taanith. 

75,  b 
116,  rt 

557 
319 

113,  a 

704 

fol. 

3,  b        405 

121,  rt 

276 

113,  6 

319,  477 

5.  rt       557 

Chagigah  (Mishnah). 

Avodah-Zarah. 

ch.  ii.     4 

262 

Megtt.t.ah. 

fol.     3,  rt 

200 

MOEU  Katon. 
fol.    26,  a        561 

fol. 

6,  rt        478 

9,  rt        168 

14,  6        412 

18.  6 
27,  b 
44,  ft 

656 
322 
454 

EosH  Hashanah. 

23,  rt        276 

fol.    16,  a 

276 

Sanhedrin. 

16,  b 
21,  b 

276 
233 

fol. 

Yevamoth. 
16,  6        375 

fol.   .37,  rt 

401 

%\  a        477,  514 

YOITA. 

49,  b        233,  294 

62,  63      319 

63,  ft        328 

59,  rt 
64,  a 
81,  ft 

477 
612 
211,  278 

fol.     2,  n 

5,  & 

9,  a 

9,  6 

14,  b 

18,  rt,  b 

262,  277 
274 

86,  b        259 

89,  b 

90,  6 

411 
405 

211,362 
558 
277 
277 

fol. 

Ketiiubotii. 

103,  6        276 

104,  a       268 

99,  a 
100,  6 
103,  6 
110,  6 

235 
328 
293 
376 

19,  rt 

211 

KlDDUSHIN. 

19,  b 

20,  rt 

277 
277 

fol. 

29,  ft       319 

SnEvnoTH. 

20,  b 

278 

70.  b        211,  362 

fol.    13,  a 

276 

23.  rt 

405 

82,  a        405,  411 

28,  b 

29,  6 

411 

278 

GlTTIN. 

ilACCOTH. 

35,  6 

704 

fol. 

7,  rt        211 

fol.    23,  b  ) 

288 

38,  rt 

16^^ 

5T.  a        486 

21,  a  (' 

48 


754     PASSAGES  FROM  THE  BOOK  OF  ENOCH. 


AVOTH  (Mishnah). 

Gerim. 

Chttllin. 

ch.  i.   10            388 

ch.  i.                  405 

fol. 

90,  &       266 

17            387 
iv.    15            386 
V.    21            324 

Menachoth. 

fol.    29,  a        204 

Kerixhoth. 

99,  b       166 

fol. 

7,  a       276 

AvOTH  DE  R.  NATHAV. 

Menacuoth  (Tosefta). 

28,  a        363 
28,  b        i^A 

ch.  xxxi.x.              653 

361 

SOPHRIM. 

Bechoroth. 

MiDDOTH. 

ch.  .XV.                   477 

fol.     4,  a       259 

ch.  V. 

2            701 

PASSAGES    FKOM    THE    BOOK    OF    EIS^OCH 
QUOTED  OR  REFEERED  TO. 


150  e« 

?«ff. 

xiv.    4 

684 

xlv.-lv. 

682 

155  et  ieq. 

5 

150 

xlv. 

2        499 

515 

XV.    1-7 

685 

liii. 

S        156 

i.-xxxv. 

682, 

684 

3 

150 

liv. 

6        684 

i.-vi. 

12 

682 

xvi.    5 

684 

Ivi.-lxx. 

682 

6 

141 

xvii.- 

XXXV. 

682 

Ixxi.-cv. 

684 

8 

151 

xviii.  13 

520 

Ixxi.-lxxxi. 

683 

vi. 

4 

151 

14,16 

15(i,  685 

Ixxxii 

-Ixxxix. 

683 

vil.-x. 

682 

xxi.    3 

156,  520 

xc,  xci. 

683 

vii. 

2 

684 

6 

684 

xcii. 

1-18  6^3 

X. 

1- 

9    684 

10 

150 

xcii.  19-civ.  683 

xi.-xvi. 

682 

xxxvii 

.-Ixx. 

682,  684 

xcviii. 

3        554 

xii.-xvi. 

152 

xxxviii 

-xliv. 

682 

civ. 

1-3    513 

xii. 

4 

150 

xl.    8 

151 

cv. 

6a3 

5 

7    156, 

684 

xli.    1 

151 

